Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist

Anthony Watts’ earlier posting about Margaret Thatcher’s sceptical approach to the climate question prompted some comments asking whether I could add anything to the story, since I gave her advice on science as well as other policy from 1982-1986, two years before the IPCC was founded.

First, what on Earth was a layman with a degree in classical languages and architecture doing giving advice on science to the British Prime Minister, who was herself a scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society?

Truth is, British government is small (though still a lot bigger and more expensive than it need be). The Prime Minister’s policy unit had just six members, and, as a mathematician who was about to make a goodish fortune turning an obscure and hitherto-unnoticed wrinkle in the principles of probabilistic combinatorics into a pair of world best-selling puzzles, I was the only one who knew any science.

So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward. On my first day in the job, I tottered into Downing Street dragging with me one of the world’s first portable computers, the 18-lb Osborne 1, with a 5” screen, floppy disks that were still truly floppy, and a Z80 8-bit chip which I had learned to program in machine language as well as BASIC.

This was the first computer they had ever seen in Downing Street. The head of security, a bluff military veteran, was deeply suspicious. “What do you want a computer for?” he asked. “Computing,” I replied.

I worked that weighty little box hard. It did everything: converting opinion-poll percentages to predictions of Parliamentary seats won and lost (we predicted the result of the 1983 General Election to within 1 seat); demonstrating a new type of index-linked home loan that removed the inflationary front-loading of interest payments and made it easier for working people to buy the State-owned houses they lived in (we sold a million, and turned cringing clients of the State into proud homeowners with a valuable stake in Britain); and calculating the optimum hull configuration for warships to prove that a government department had defrauded a lone inventor (he got $1 million in compensation).

The tiny computer back-engineered the Social Security Department’s model that showed the impact of changes in tax and benefit rates on different types of family; discounted Cabinet Ministers’ policies to present value to appraise their viability as investments; and worked out how much extra revenue the Government would get if it cut the top rate of income tax from 60 cents on the dollar to 40 cents.

On that one, I was right and the Treasury were wrong: as I had calculated, the rich ended up paying not only more tax but a higher percentage of total tax, even though the top tax rate they had previously paid was 50% higher than the new rate.

The only expenses I ever claimed for in four years at 10 Downing Street were £172 for soldering dry joints on that overworked computer, on which I also did the first elementary radiative-transfer calculations that indicated climate scientists were right to say some “global warming” would arise as CO2 concentration continued to climb.

I briefed my colleagues in the Policy Unit, and also the Prime Minister herself. My advice was straightforward: CO2 concentrations were rising, we were causing it, and it would cause some warming, but at that time no one knew how much (plus ca change), so we needed to find out.

The Prime Minister’s response was equally hard-headed: we were to keep an eye on the problem and come back to her again when action was necessary.

Did she even mention that “global warming” presented an opportunity to give nuclear power a push and, at the same time, to do down the coal-miners who had destroyed a previous Conservative government and had also tried to destroy hers?

Certainly not, for four compelling reasons.

First, nuclear power was politically dead at that time, following the monumentally stupid attempt by the Soviet operators of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor to shut it down without external power just because they were curious to see what would happen.

Secondly, by then the mineworkers, under their Communist leadership, had long been defeated, and we were making arrangements for the deep, dangerous, loss-making coal-mines that had killed so many brave pitmen to be shut down and replaced with safer, profitable, opencast mines.

Two mineworkers came to my farewell party at 10 Downing Street: the first miners ever to enter Downing Street during a Conservative administration.

Thirdly, Margaret Thatcher was never vindictive: it simply was not in her nature. If any of us ever suggested taking any action that would unfairly disadvantage any of her political opponents, she would give us the Gazillion-Gigawatt Glare and say, very firmly and quietly, “Prime Ministers don’t, dear!”

Fourthly, she had an unusual mind that effortlessly spanned CP Snow’s Two Cultures.

As a former food chemist, she possessed the ruthlessly honest logic of the true scientist. As a former barrister, she had the vigor and articulacy of the true practitioner of the forensic arts. Too many scientists today are in effect politicians: too many politicians pretend to be scientific.

Margaret Thatcher was genuinely both scientist and politician, and was able to take the best from both roles without confusing them. She would not have dreamed of doing anything that in any way undermined the integrity of science.

A little vignette will illustrate her scientific integrity. In the late 1970s, a year before she won the first of her three General Elections and became Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, I had sent her a tiny piece of propaganda that I had designed, the Labour Pound.

The little slip of paper bore this simple message: “This is a Labour Pound. This is how small your banknote would be today if it had been shrunk to match the fall in its value under Labour. Vote Conservative!”

Margaret Thatcher noticed at once that the piece of paper was a little too small. Inflation had been bad under the Labour Government (at the time it was running at 27% a year), but not that bad. “Do it again and get it right and be fair,” she said. Humbled, I did as I was told – and tens of millions of Labour Pounds were distributed throughout Britain at the subsequent General Election, to satisfyingly devastating effect.

In 1988 it was my successor at No. 10, George Guise, who traveled one bitterly cold October weekend down to Chequers, the Prime Minister’s country house, and sat in front of a roaring fire writing the speech that would announce a government subsidy to the Royal Society to establish what would become the Hadley Centre for Forecasting.

George remembers how he and the Prime Minister chuckled at the irony of writing a speech about “global warming” on an evening so cold that he could hardly hold his pen.

But that’s October for you: a couple of years ago the scientific illiterates who now inhabit the House of Commons voted for the Climate Change and National Economic Hara-Kiri Bill by one of the largest majorities in Parliament’s history, with only three gallant MPs having the courage to defy the Whips and vote against – and this on the very night that the first October snow in 74 years fell in Parliament Square.

In due course, the scientific results began to arrive. It became as clear to Margaret Thatcher as it has to me that our original concern was no longer necessary. The warming effect of CO2 is simply too small to make much difference and, in any event, it is orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to any consequences of “global warming” than to wreck the economies of the West by trying to demonize CO2 and cut our emissions.

Margaret Thatcher was very conscious that the Left tries to taint every aspect of life by attempting to politicize it.

In her thinking, therefore, there is genuine outrage that the coalescence of financial and political vested-interest factions in the scientific and academic community that are driving the climate scare should be striving to bring the age of enlightenment and reason to an end by treating scientific debate as though every question were a political football to be kicked Leftward.

In the elegant words of my good friend Bob Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute, she is interested not in “policy-based evidence-making” but in “evidence-based policy-making”. The present crop of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic could learn much from her honest, forthright, no-nonsense approach.

Margaret Thatcher – the world’s first climate realist

Guest posting by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Anthony Watts’ earlier posting about Margaret Thatcher’s sceptical approach to the climate question prompted some comments asking whether I could add anything to the story, since I gave her advice on science as well as other policy from 1982-1986, two years before the IPCC was founded.

First, what on Earth was a layman with a degree in classical languages and architecture doing giving advice on science to the British Prime Minister, who was herself a scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society?

Truth is, British government is small (though still a lot bigger and more expensive than it need be). The Prime Minister’s policy unit had just six members, and, as a mathematician who was about to make a goodish fortune turning an obscure and hitherto-unnoticed wrinkle in the principles of probabilistic combinatorics into a pair of world best-selling puzzles, I was the only one who knew any science.

So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward. On my first day in the job, I tottered into Downing Street dragging with me one of the world’s first portable computers, the 18-lb Osborne 1, with a 5” screen, floppy disks that were still truly floppy, and a Z80 8-bit chip which I had learned to program in machine language as well as BASIC.

This was the first computer they had ever seen in Downing Street. The head of security, a bluff military veteran, was deeply suspicious. “What do you want a computer for?” he asked. “Computing,” I replied.

I worked that weighty little box hard. It did everything: converting opinion-poll percentages to predictions of Parliamentary seats won and lost (we predicted the result of the 1983 General Election to within 1 seat); demonstrating a new type of index-linked home loan that removed the inflationary front-loading of interest payments and made it easier for working people to buy the State-owned houses they lived in (we sold a million, and turned cringing clients of the State into proud homeowners with a valuable stake in Britain); and calculating the optimum hull configuration for warships to prove that a government department had defrauded a lone inventor (he go $1 million in compensation).

The tiny computer back-engineered the Social Security Department’s model that showed the impact of changes in tax and benefit rates on different types of family; discounted Cabinet Ministers’ policies to present value to appraise their viability as investments; and worked out how much extra revenue the Government would get if it cut the top rate of income tax from 60 cents on the dollar to 40 cents.

On that one, I was right and the Treasury were wrong: as I had calculated, the rich ended up paying not only more tax but a higher percentage of total tax, even though the top tax rate they had previously paid was 50% higher than the new rate.

The only expenses I ever claimed for in four years at 10 Downing Street were £172 for soldering dry joints on that overworked computer, on which I also did the first elementary radiative-transfer calculations that indicated climate scientists were right to say some “global warming” would arise as CO2 concentration continued to climb.

I briefed my colleagues in the Policy Unit, and also the Prime Minister herself. My advice was straightforward: CO2 concentrations were rising, we were causing it, and it would cause some warming, but at that time no one knew how much (plus ca change), so we needed to find out.

The Prime Minister’s response was equally hard-headed: we were to keep an eye on the problem and come back to her again when action was necessary.

Did she even mention that “global warming” presented an opportunity to give nuclear power a push and, at the same time, to do down the coal-miners who had destroyed a previous Conservative government and had also tried to destroy hers?

Certainly not, for four compelling reasons.

First, nuclear power was politically dead at that time, following the monumentally stupid attempt by the Soviet operators of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor to shut it down without external power just because they were curious to see what would happen.

Secondly, by then the mineworkers, under their Communist leadership, had long been defeated, and we were making arrangements for the deep, dangerous, loss-making coal-mines that had killed so many brave pitmen to be shut down and replaced with safer, profitable, opencast mines.

Two mineworkers came to my farewell party at 10 Downing Street: the first miners ever to enter Downing Street during a Conservative administration.

Thirdly, Margaret Thatcher was never vindictive: it simply was not in her nature. If any of us ever suggested taking any action that would unfairly disadvantage any of her political opponents, she would give us the Gazillion-Gigawatt Glare and say, very firmly and quietly, “Prime Ministers don’t, dear!”

Fourthly, she had an unusual mind that effortlessly spanned CP Snow’s Two Cultures.

As a former food chemist, she possessed the ruthlessly honest logic of the true scientist. As a former barrister, she had the vigor and articulacy of the true practitioner of the forensic arts. Too many scientists today are in effect politicians: too many politicians pretend to be scientific.

Margaret Thatcher was genuinely both scientist and politician, and was able to take the best from both roles without confusing them. She would not have dreamed of doing anything that in any way undermined the integrity of science.

A little vignette will illustrate her scientific integrity. In the late 1970s, a year before she won the first of her three General Elections and became Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, I had sent her a tiny piece of propaganda that I had designed, the Labour Pound.

The little slip of paper bore this simple message: “This is a Labour Pound. This is how small your banknote would be today if it had been shrunk to match the fall in its value under Labour. Vote Conservative!”

Margaret Thatcher noticed at once that the piece of paper was a little too small. Inflation had been bad under the Labour Government (at the time it was running at 27% a year), but not that bad. “Do it again and get it right and be fair,” she said. Humbled, I did as I was told – and tens of millions of Labour Pounds were distributed throughout Britain at the subsequent General Election, to satisfyingly devastating effect.

In 1988 it was my successor at No. 10, George Guise, who traveled one bitterly cold October weekend down to Chequers, the Prime Minister’s country house, and sat in front of a roaring fire writing the speech that would announce a government subsidy to the Royal Society to establish what would become the Hadley Centre for Forecasting.

George remembers how he and the Prime Minister chuckled at the irony of writing a speech about “global warming” on an evening so cold that he could hardly hold his pen.

But that’s October for you: a couple of years ago the scientific illiterates who now inhabit the House of Commons voted for the Climate Change and National Economic Hara-Kiri Bill by one of the largest majorities in Parliament’s history, with only three gallant MPs having the courage to defy the Whips and vote against – and this on the very night that the first October snow in 74 years fell in Parliament Square.

In due course, the scientific results began to arrive. It became as clear to Margaret Thatcher as it has to me that our original concern was no longer necessary. The warming effect of CO2 is simply too small to make much difference and, in any event, it is orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to any consequences of “global warming” than to wreck the economies of the West by trying to demonize CO2 and cut our emissions.

Margaret Thatcher was very conscious that the Left tries to taint every aspect of life by attempting to politicize it.

In her thinking, therefore, there is genuine outrage that the coalescence of financial and political vested-interest factions in the scientific and academic community that are driving the climate scare should be striving to bring the age of enlightenment and reason to an end by treating scientific debate as though every question were a political football to be kicked Leftward.

In the elegant words of my good friend Bob Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute, she is interested not in “policy-based evidence-making” but in “evidence-based policy-making”. The present crop of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic could learn much from her honest, forthright, no-nonsense approach.

Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Anthony Watts’ earlier posting about Margaret Thatcher’s sceptical approach to the climate question prompted some comments asking whether I could add anything to the story, since I gave her advice on science as well as other policy from 1982-1986, two years before the IPCC was founded.

First, what on Earth was a layman with a degree in classical languages and architecture doing giving advice on science to the British Prime Minister, who was herself a scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society?

Truth is, British government is small (though still a lot bigger and more expensive than it need be). The Prime Minister’s policy unit had just six members, and, as a mathematician who was about to make a goodish fortune turning an obscure and hitherto-unnoticed wrinkle in the principles of probabilistic combinatorics into a pair of world best-selling puzzles, I was the only one who knew any science.

So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward. On my first day in the job, I tottered into Downing Street dragging with me one of the world’s first portable computers, the 18-lb Osborne 1, with a 5” screen, floppy disks that were still truly floppy, and a Z80 8-bit chip which I had learned to program in machine language as well as BASIC.

This was the first computer they had ever seen in Downing Street. The head of security, a bluff military veteran, was deeply suspicious. “What do you want a computer for?” he asked. “Computing,” I replied.

I worked that weighty little box hard. It did everything: converting opinion-poll percentages to predictions of Parliamentary seats won and lost (we predicted the result of the 1983 General Election to within 1 seat); demonstrating a new type of index-linked home loan that removed the inflationary front-loading of interest payments and made it easier for working people to buy the State-owned houses they lived in (we sold a million, and turned cringing clients of the State into proud homeowners with a valuable stake in Britain); and calculating the optimum hull configuration for warships to prove that a government department had defrauded a lone inventor (he go $1 million in compensation).

The tiny computer back-engineered the Social Security Department’s model that showed the impact of changes in tax and benefit rates on different types of family; discounted Cabinet Ministers’ policies to present value to appraise their viability as investments; and worked out how much extra revenue the Government would get if it cut the top rate of income tax from 60 cents on the dollar to 40 cents.

On that one, I was right and the Treasury were wrong: as I had calculated, the rich ended up paying not only more tax but a higher percentage of total tax, even though the top tax rate they had previously paid was 50% higher than the new rate.

The only expenses I ever claimed for in four years at 10 Downing Street were £172 for soldering dry joints on that overworked computer, on which I also did the first elementary radiative-transfer calculations that indicated climate scientists were right to say some “global warming” would arise as CO2 concentration continued to climb.

I briefed my colleagues in the Policy Unit, and also the Prime Minister herself. My advice was straightforward: CO2 concentrations were rising, we were causing it, and it would cause some warming, but at that time no one knew how much (plus ca change), so we needed to find out.

The Prime Minister’s response was equally hard-headed: we were to keep an eye on the problem and come back to her again when action was necessary.

Did she even mention that “global warming” presented an opportunity to give nuclear power a push and, at the same time, to do down the coal-miners who had destroyed a previous Conservative government and had also tried to destroy hers?

Certainly not, for four compelling reasons.

First, nuclear power was politically dead at that time, following the monumentally stupid attempt by the Soviet operators of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor to shut it down without external power just because they were curious to see what would happen.

Secondly, by then the mineworkers, under their Communist leadership, had long been defeated, and we were making arrangements for the deep, dangerous, loss-making coal-mines that had killed so many brave pitmen to be shut down and replaced with safer, profitable, opencast mines.

Two mineworkers came to my farewell party at 10 Downing Street: the first miners ever to enter Downing Street during a Conservative administration.

Thirdly, Margaret Thatcher was never vindictive: it simply was not in her nature. If any of us ever suggested taking any action that would unfairly disadvantage any of her political opponents, she would give us the Gazillion-Gigawatt Glare and say, very firmly and quietly, “Prime Ministers don’t, dear!”

Fourthly, she had an unusual mind that effortlessly spanned CP Snow’s Two Cultures.

As a former food chemist, she possessed the ruthlessly honest logic of the true scientist. As a former barrister, she had the vigor and articulacy of the true practitioner of the forensic arts. Too many scientists today are in effect politicians: too many politicians pretend to be scientific.

Margaret Thatcher was genuinely both scientist and politician, and was able to take the best from both roles without confusing them. She would not have dreamed of doing anything that in any way undermined the integrity of science.

A little vignette will illustrate her scientific integrity. In the late 1970s, a year before she won the first of her three General Elections and became Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, I had sent her a tiny piece of propaganda that I had designed, the Labour Pound.

The little slip of paper bore this simple message: “This is a Labour Pound. This is how small your banknote would be today if it had been shrunk to match the fall in its value under Labour. Vote Conservative!”

Margaret Thatcher noticed at once that the piece of paper was a little too small. Inflation had been bad under the Labour Government (at the time it was running at 27% a year), but not that bad. “Do it again and get it right and be fair,” she said. Humbled, I did as I was told – and tens of millions of Labour Pounds were distributed throughout Britain at the subsequent General Election, to satisfyingly devastating effect.

In 1988 it was my successor at No. 10, George Guise, who traveled one bitterly cold October weekend down to Chequers, the Prime Minister’s country house, and sat in front of a roaring fire writing the speech that would announce a government subsidy to the Royal Society to establish what would become the Hadley Centre for Forecasting.

George remembers how he and the Prime Minister chuckled at the irony of writing a speech about “global warming” on an evening so cold that he could hardly hold his pen.

But that’s October for you: a couple of years ago the scientific illiterates who now inhabit the House of Commons voted for the Climate Change and National Economic Hara-Kiri Bill by one of the largest majorities in Parliament’s history, with only three gallant MPs having the courage to defy the Whips and vote against – and this on the very night that the first October snow in 74 years fell in Parliament Square.

In due course, the scientific results began to arrive. It became as clear to Margaret Thatcher as it has to me that our original concern was no longer necessary. The warming effect of CO2 is simply too small to make much difference and, in any event, it is orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to any consequences of “global warming” than to wreck the economies of the West by trying to demonize CO2 and cut our emissions.

Margaret Thatcher was very conscious that the Left tries to taint every aspect of life by attempting to politicize it.

In her thinking, therefore, there is genuine outrage that the coalescence of financial and political vested-interest factions in the scientific and academic community that are driving the climate scare should be striving to bring the age of enlightenment and reason to an end by treating scientific debate as though every question were a political football to be kicked Leftward.

In the elegant words of my good friend Bob Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute, she is interested not in “policy-based evidence-making” but in “evidence-based policy-making”. The present crop of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic could learn much from her honest, forthright, no-nonsense approach.

268 thoughts on “Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist”

Thank you for a delightful read Lord Monckton. Margaret Thatcher was certainly one of the great leaders of the free world. I hope we can muster enough of her fighting spirit to thwart this evil CO2 con game that threatens the quality of life for our children and grand children. Good luck to us all.

Insight is what we gain when we are exposed to the facts. Agenda-generated illusions fade away and the clarity of purpose that is needed in these trying times comes to the fore.
Thanks to Christopher for sharing his experiences as well as his experience.

“I tottered into Downing Street dragging with me one of the world’s first portable computers, the 18-lb Osborne 1, with a 5” screen, floppy disks that were still truly floppy, and a Z80 8-bit chip which I had learned to program in machine language as well as BASIC.” – Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Being an assembly language programmer explains a lot about Christopher (and myself) for assembly language programmers don’t take any guff from higher level programmers, we are highly tenacious and out of necessity are doggedly persistent not letting go till the details are on target and correct!

What I meant to say, m’lud, was that I so very much enjoyed your article, and that should the world ever need to know just when the geeks took over government, they need look no further than m’lud, m’lud.

Thank you, Christopher, for reaffirming my sense of Maggie Thatcher. As I stated in the last article regarding Margaret Thatcher, I can’t think of her without reminiscing about Ronald Reagan and regarding the similar circumstances that lead to the both of them being placed in office, the results of their leadership, and the similar circumstances we find ourselves in, again. We sure could use a couple of leaders like the two to drop by.

Anthony, given the near total demolition of Monckton’s credibility handed out by John Abraham (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/), letting the laird flaunt his wit on WUWT does not enhance the blog’s reputation for accuracy and fairness.

I would also like to state for the record that Baroness Thatcher may have been the first politician to experience the full force of a coordinated, politically motivated and ideological scientific establishment. It is unfortunate, but it is my opinion that science is now hopelessly politicized and utterly useless for any kind of public policy application. Everything is the party now.

Reagan, Thatcher, and Karol Wojtyla aka Pope John Paul II together rescued Western democracies from their post-1950s slough-of-despond, by 1989 even bringing Sovietism’s “evil empire” to an end. Next up: As of yesterday, abolishing the despotic and corrupt UN with Pachauri’s stupifyingly malfeasant IPCC .

“Climategate” spelled doom for AGW hysterics barely six months ago. Given a looming “dead sun” 20-year Dalton if not 70-year Maunder Minimum, these death-eating Luddite sociopaths have little to expect.

I had an Osborne 1 – should have kept it. Spent toooo many hours looking at that small screen playing “Adventure”.

I think one of the main problems in the current debate is that scientists in general lead an autonomous work life only coming together at conferences and thus do not have the skills to confront their superiors over delicate subjects. However, when it comes to interacting with the public these same timid scientists become quite condescending as they think of themselves as intellectually superior to the ignorant masses. Added to this is that some scientists become institutionalised and thus must tow the line to keep their jobs as they would not survive in the commercial world.

Dude lost me when he started blathering about polar bears. The polar bear population is increasing. I’d provide links, but the information is readily available, try google or bing, further, “he has not written any….blather, blather” What garbage. Also with the appeal to authority. All in the first 2 minutes. Try again.

Yeah I gotta be honest,
I do from time to time appreciate the analysis posted on this blog but listening to “Lord” Monckton go on and on does not speak well of the quality of this blog. Monckton’s claims have been and will continue to be refuted time and time again by John Cook, John Abraham, Peter Sinclair and the boys at real climate. Frankly I have more of an educational background in climate science then monckton, so why not give me the microphone? I would love to see some evidence beyond hear-say that Monckton was indeed a science adviser to Thatcher…

John Abraham, as has been pointed out before, takes his pot shots from the safety of his ivory tower, then withdraws to the company of his fellow academics, who no doubt pat him on the back and tell him what a brave character he is for doing his drive-by hit and run.

Instead, he should issue a debate challenge, which Lord Monckton would no doubt accept with alacrity. I for one would enjoy watching the Viscount add another debate scalp to his growing collection.

Alas, perfumed, tenured profs like Abraham seem to always run and hide out from a fair and square debate.

Thank you, Lord Monckton, for these stories. As one who grew up in the 70’s and 80’s, I have the highest respect for the Iron Lady. In my mind, she, President Reagan, and Pope John Paul were the driving forces behind the fall of the Soviet Union. Great to see my opinions confirmed that she was a great leader, that we all could use today.

Here is Lady Thatcher’s speech on climate change, Nov 6 1990. She must have forgotten Lord M’s advice. An excerpt:

“I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Dr. Tolba and Professor Obasi deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC report is a remarkable achievement. It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds. “

“It became as clear to Margaret Thatcher as it has to me that our original concern was no longer necessary. The warming effect of CO2 is simply too small to make much difference and, in any event, it is orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to any consequences of “global warming” than to wreck the economies of the West by trying to demonize CO2 and cut our emissions.”

Great read thank you Lord Monckton. Imagine Margaret Thatcher coming out “of retirement”? and repeating what had been determined way back then. That would pack quite a punch.

But the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can’t repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river. It will take, for example, until the second half of the next century, until the old age of my [ Michael Thatcher] grandson, to repair the damage to the ozone layer above the Antarctic. And some of the gases we are adding to the global heat trap will endure in the Earth’s atmosphere for just as long.

The IPCC tells us that, on present trends, the earth will warm up faster than at any time since the last ice age. Weather patterns could change so that what is now wet would become dry, and what is now dry would become wet. Rising seas could threaten the livelihood of that substantial part of the world’s population which lives on or near coasts. The character and behaviour of plants would change, some for the better, some for worse. Some species of animals and plants would migrate to different zones or disappear for ever. Forests would die or move. And deserts would advance as green fields retreated.

…

And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.

…

But our immediate task this week is to carry as many countries as possible with us, so that we can negotiate a successful framework convention on climate change in 1992. We must also begin work on the binding commitments that will be necessary to make the convention work.

To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC’s report or debating the right machinery for making progress. The International Panel’s work should be taken as our sign post: and the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation as the principal vehicles for reaching our destination.

We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3]

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.

We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation of greenhouse gases.

It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect—but only in the right proportions.

More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world’s population was some 2 billion people. My [ Michael Thatcher] grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people.

Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: • The land they cultivate ever more intensively; • The forests they cut down and burn; • The mountain sides they lay bare; • The fossil fuels they burn; • The rivers and the seas they pollute.

The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all.

That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching.

So what is your beef Derek; you got to post your little Abraham link didn’t you.

I don’t think Viscount Monckton has ever overstated his credentials. And here he has simply relayed some history he was in on. So maybe you should be challenging him on his recollection of THAT HISTORY; instead of dragging in some tenured heavyweight who himself presumably isn’t a climatologer either.

I’ll certainly defer to Professor Abraham, if I need some thermodynamics instruction; but when it comes to history of the Thatcher Government and years I think I’ll take Lord Monckton over Prof Abraham.

But you can go on and continue to try and hijack the thread. At least here YOU have no basis for questioning the blog’s accuracy and fairness; you got to say exactly what is on your mind.

If Chasmod inadvertently altered your message; then I will apologise; otherwise try to say something on message (if you have anything to say; that is).

At the very least, it shows Christopher Monckton was being highly generous in his statement, “The Prime Minister’s response was equally hard-headed: we were to keep an eye on the problem and come back to her again when action was necessary.”

This leaves the reader — to wit, us — with the impression Thatcher was very circumspect about the issue until all the data was in, at which time she agreed this was essentially a non (or at least very minor and easily remedied) problem.

Mike has proved just the opposite is true.

I appreciate that in this last decade, Margaret Thatcher came around to what I, Christopher Monckton, and Anthony Watts et al. agree is more likely to be a correct position … but Monckton’s guest article, while great reading and often insightful as to his own burgeoning scientific expertise, was grossly distortative with regards to Margaret Thatcher.

Being an assembly language programmer … assembly language programmers don’t take any guff from higher level programmers … highly tenacious and out of necessity are doggedly persistent not letting go till the details are on target and correct!

Count another SAL (or ASM) programmer in the ranks; including time on the Z-80 and a TI-960 … the real-time debugging on the Z-80 necessitated interconnection of a 256-step deep 16 bit-addr + 8 bit-data HP logic analyzer … cross-assemble the code, download to target and execute … taking a ‘snapshot’ on LA of the execution progress … no step-by-step debugging possible to debug this particular real-time app (off-air reception/decode of a 3.6 kbaud GMSK signal) …
.
.

“You people are down right Orwellian. Thatcher said what she said. If you disagree with her fine, but do not pretend she was one you. Get real.”

Mike, there are many of us that once believed that tripe. Well, not me, but many here. The fact is, a great many people here once believed the alarmism. But that was 20 years ago and most of us learn by observation. I’m guessing you don’t know anything about the book she wrote circa 2003. If you knew about the book, you’d have read about her warning us about the alarmists and about how irrational they are. You see, many of us took the “scientists” at their word for several years. As it turned out, our trust was misguided. It’s a learning process that one must choose to participate in, else you’ll doomed to believing everything you’re told.

“Monckton’s claims have been and will continue to be refuted time and time again by John Cook, John Abraham, Peter Sinclair and the boys at real climate.”

You said it exactly right, Robert: the boys at RealClimate. The same boys who got whupped good by a real man, Lord Monckton, in the single debate that Gavin and the other boys [and one girl] dared to engage in.

As usual, the Viscount and his team rubbed their noses in the playground sand. And you can’t do that without facts.

My own view is that the warmist folks are simply envious: what have they got? Gavin Schmidt, an amateur juggler with an accent? The discredited Michael Mann? Al Gore?? While WUWT has a real, honest to goodness Lord. A Viscount, who takes them to the woodshed! *snicker*

Since it’s let’s quote Margaret Thatcher time, here’s one that Paul Deacon posted last week:

Margaret Thatcher, “HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING” (pp. 449-458):

“The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

Lady Thatcher is retired, so she can write things that she couldn’t when in office. Such as calling climate alarmists “doomsters.” heh.

“While WUWT has a real, honest to goodness Lord. A Viscount, who takes them to the woodshed!”

You’ll now notice Anthony Watts does not make that claim.

“Christopher Monckton of Brenchley”

I think it’s foolish to argue over a title. It doesn’t matter worth a damn. But if you are going to bring it up, you should be aware that “WUWT” isn’t claiming, or accepting the claim, that Christopher Monckton’s proper title is “Lord”.

I think he’s a hella-smart guy and I couldn’t care less whether the silly (and outright offensive, for that matter, to human liberty — as if someone should be a “Lord” due to their heredity!) British title is, or is not, properly applied to him. But to the degree it matters, the correct answer seems to be “not”.

I was having a little fun. We know there is no one Lording it over us, especially in America [with the glaring exception of the President and his pet Congress & Senate]. But we also know that lots of Americans are infatuated with nobility [Mrs. S watches soap operas, so I know this to be true].

And you’re right, I don’t speak for Anthony Watts; only Anthony speaks for Anthony. But the point has been made here before that we have a real Lord, and the warmist crowd doesn’t, so neener.

Christoph says:
June 16, 2010 at 6:39 pm
“…..But to the degree it matters, the correct answer seems to be “not”.

“As a free man, I have no Lord.”

Well, I suppose it depends on your perspective. You should try and study a bit of their history and understand where and how the “House of Lords” came to be.

I agree with you later statement. We fought that war a couple of centuries ago. I’ve buried the hatchet. If they wish to continue their traditions, then I say good on them. I can’t help but wonder if you felt the same passion and indignation as your statement implies, when my current president bowed to a foreign monarch.

Have you looked out the window lately? The IPCC ‘scientists’ were but few and the anecdotes presented in AR4 were largely not peer reviewed. 2035 comes to mind but where is the projected heat and where are the oceans rising. Why is the arctic recovering. No projections met other than spending billions of taxpayers dollars. Meanwhile the trainman smiles on his private ‘research’ estate.

First of all, Lord Monckton did not participate in that debate. So you pretty much have to admit that half of your commentary is essentially refuted. Nice fact-checking by the way, fits well with Monckton himself. Secondly, because one side of a debate is better at theatrics and manipulating the minds of public citizens does not make them any more right… 80% of people could say gravity isn’t true. It doesn’t make it any more true… Lets not let facts get in the way of honest debate right?

Anyway, James, I’m objecting to the title “Lord”, not the existence of the body itself, now elected.

Terms of respect are fine with me: Honorable member, “Sir” to the Sgt.-Major, etc. But I do object, in principle, to using any title that hints at another person’s Lordship.

I’m not religious, so I object on enlightenment grounds. But if I were religious, I’m object on grounds that I had only one true Lord.

Et cetera.

Back to the topic of the thread, I really enjoyed the article and I also think it would have benefited with a timeline of sorts. Then one could put Mike’s justified comment about Thatchers’ CO2 speeches in context.

Christopher, thou modern Tully,… you could sell Stalin back to the Russians, you’re that good. On that account, people should worry that they agree with you. But if Thatcher wants to make amends, she should should write her own guest post.

Monckton is a right wing fantasist. Margaret Thatcher was a relatively rare creature in nature, the female psychopath, and there are millions of people waiting to dance on her grave.

She is also absolutely reponsible for the politicisation of the global warming scam. Her speech at the UN and the establishment of the Hadley centre and the appointment of environmentalists Sir John Houghton and Phil Jones. She turned Britain into a post industrial banking fiefdom, and that is a big clue as to what is happening.

Thatcher was selected as party because her husband Dennis was a director of Burmah oil. Big American oil interests loved the war against coal (and the unions). Norman Tebbit stood aside to let her run. There is absolutely zero chance the tories would have elected a woman in the 1970s without some ulterior motive. Women hardly even drove cars in the UK then (if a man was available).

I liked the world better when Reagan/Thatcher were bringing down the Evil Socialist Empire with clear thinking.
Margaret Thatcher must have paid attention to Eisenhower’s warning about the politicization of science.

You’re right, I was wrong about Monckton in the ’07 debate. Got him confused with Crichton. Which is even worse from your POV, I suppose.

Here’s another account of that debate. I notice that Gavin Schmidt blamed his loss on the fact that he’s short and Crichton is tall. As if. Same excuse Jimmuh Carter’s people used following his 1980 debate loss with Reagan.

“But he was in Saudi Arabia and all, and I’m sure Barack Obama felt pretty emotional.”

lol, alright, I understand, I’d note, that I don’t address him as lord, either. It’s just something my beliefs and heritage doesn’t allow for. Still, if the Brits wish to continue the peerage, I’m not indignant about it, let it go through. Further, from my perspective, Mr. Monckton is a Viscount, which makes him a truer part of the peerage than any one elected. But that’s just my perspective.

I have no doubt that Thatcher played both sides. What politician at any degree of higher level doesn’t do that? They rise to that level because they played both sides. Politicians cannot rise to significant power in voting republics and democracies by playing only to their niche.

@Jim: What is your point? My point is that climatology is not some left-wing conspiracy since there are some brave prominent conservatives who acknowledge the science even if they debate solutions. I don’t claim to know what the solution is. Had we addressed this problem in the 1990s we be in a much better position to sort out what might work from measures that are ineffective or counter productive.

Derek B says: “Anthony, given the near total demolition of Monckton’s credibility handed out by John Abraham (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/), letting the laird flaunt his wit on WUWT does not enhance the blog’s reputation for accuracy and fairness.”

I’ll take that since Lord M, has actually programmed RTE’s and concluded that increasing C02 will increase temperatures ( they wont cool the planet) that all the folks who chastise me for making the same argument will now take up the matter with him.

Increasing GHGs will increase the earth temperature. Lord M, Christy, Spenser, Lindzen concur on this. The issue is how much.

I always wondered how Monckton became Thatcher’s science advisor. Now I see it’s due to him having been self-labeled a “mathematician” based on the best selling puzzles he would create over a decade after leaving his post with Thatcher. That explains a lot.

“John Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a Bible college in Minnesota, has recently issued — and widely disseminated — a hilariously mendacious 83-minute attempted rebuttal of a speech I delivered about the climate last October in St. Paul, Minnesota. So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.”

While one could easily imagine this paragraph ripped from a Monty Python script, these are not the words of a scientist.

Mike says:
June 16, 2010 at 8:02 pm
“Had we addressed this problem in the 1990s we be in a much better position ….”

My perspective is, had we understood in the 1990s that it wasn’t/isn’t a problem we’d be in a much better position today.

We still haven’t shown how even if we raise our global temp that the doom and gloom predicted would happen. I maintain that all of the proposed cures have caused and will cause more harm than the alleged disease. Look around, we’re killing humans to save humanity! It is the self imposed lack of availability of energy that is causing strife in the world. Energy in the forms of food, oil, and coal. We could replace some of that with nuclear power, but we’ve chosen a windmill instead. That alone should show the genuineness of their concern. A windmill. A cost that no one can afford, combined the with consistency, literally, of the wind which causes a redundancy of the power grid to tax the earth of resources in terms of copper, steel, bauxite and natural gas(all of which causes large emissions of CO2) in order to save the earth’s resources. It’s almost as ridiculous as turning food sources into gasoline……..oh, wait…… :-|

Better position? We’d be in a much better position today if it were never mentioned. First it was cold that man created then it was the hot, now it is the hot and cold or the cold and hot and the rain and droughts and floods and hurricanes that man created. Each and every event causes a law to be passed that constricts the freedom of man and his enterprise. What is there to gain if we lose man’s freedom and enterprise? Next, tornadoes in Kansas. Simplistic, ideological buffoons.

I also grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and was never a fan of Thatcher.
As for Moncktons account of his time as advisor, he was just an advisor. This doesn’t mean he was privvy to everything Thatcher thought or did, so I have no reason to disbelieve him, I believe it’s an honest account.

As for Thatchers motives regards Global Warming, I still prefer to believe the version that says she didn’t trust the Arabs or the Russians for energy supply and wanted to bring Nuclear back on the agenda to secure the long term energy needs of the UK.
She was proven correct, the Russians proved their worth by cutting gas supplies and the middle east crisis has no end. Nuclear is well and truly on the agenda.

Unfortunately, the hard line Greens have since hijacked the agenda. She would never ever have allowed that. We have Blair and Brown to thank for that, B1 and B2, bananas in pyjamas

Lord Monckton, You Rock! Actually he’s my Idol now.Keep up the good work.

Pamela Gray’s right , she had to play both sides , just like PM Harper here in good ol’ Canada. He’s playing along but not doing too much , an excellent strategy in a minority government. Does he believe in AGW, not on your life! He’s an economist , 0.04% of the atmosphere cannot control the weather on the planet, it doesn’t compute.

Osborns.
I had a client who in 1991 bought 600 new Osbornes, a AS400 mainframe and networked them with IBM type 1 cabling. This client was still using these machines when they closed down in late 2001. If this client were still active today I believe they would be still using the same configuration. All that technology was out of date in 1991.

Margaret Thatcher may have made some statements supporting the I.P.C.C. and it’s warminist claims in the very early nineties but since then she has seen through the propaganda and has publicly contradicted them.

Thanks Eric, good to have some solid evidence that Big Oil really doesn’t care which way the AGW debate goes, they win either way. You would think this would put an end to the warmists’ shrill accusations of prominent skeptics being on Big Oil’s payroll, but they would have very few tools left to attack with if that were the case.

First of all, Lord Monckton did not participate in that debate. So you pretty much have to admit that half of your commentary is essentially refuted. Nice fact-checking by the way, fits well with Monckton himself. Secondly, because one side of a debate is better at theatrics and manipulating the minds of public citizens does not make them any more right… 80% of people could say gravity isn’t true. It doesn’t make it any more true… Lets not let facts get in the way of honest debate right?
—————–Reply:
Sorry, but for me, a scientist (and engineer, btw), debate isn’t needed. I’ve looked at the data/facts, read a good portion of the arguments, considered the ramifications, causes, history both short- and long-term, and I don’t see where CO2 is something to fear, revile, contain, and wage war against. Certainly it is nothing to get hysterical about. And that’s the bottom line–for me and for millions of others who see this now as a way to keep other-than-honest scientists employed, unscrupulous politicians in power, and tax-oriented policies expanding. The CO2 model has failed. Already.

With or without all those millions of others, I’m satisfied to the point that I don’t lose any sleep over the rise in atmospheric CO2, but the other issues are a different matter entirely. And if you consider your oponent simply as “better at theatrics and manipulating the minds of public citizens” then you have a completely closed mind.

But your example of gravity is well taken. However, people don’t need a scientific explanation to know that gravity is “true”. They can observe the law time and time again with the simplest of experiments and nowhere near 80% would ever lie about it. Nor do they need anything more than a realistic view of human nature, the weather, a gut feeling, rational thought and broken prognostications to realize hysterical global warming isn’t true.

“While one could easily imagine this paragraph ripped from a Monty Python script, these are not the words of a scientist.”

They aren’t the words of a scientist, because he wasn’t responding to one. I just listened to Abraham’s blather. In the first two minutes he moaned about polar bears and the threat to them. (I guess he didn’t bother to read about how they are growing in population.) He appealed to authority. (Because Christopher holds no scientific degree he obviously is incapable of clear thinking.) And quoted debunked studies.(I guess he didn’t bother to read the critiques, probably because the critics don’t hold a climatologist degree and therefore incapable of independent thought.)

Cal, have you ever programed in machine language? Me either. You ever reverse engineer a com protocol? I did. Do you know what engineering degree I hold? None. So, does that mean I can’t hold my own and rise above, intellectually, engineers? Abraham’s lack of knowledge regarding the polar bear is unforgivable, given he takes Monckton to task over the issue. His appeal to authority shows his lack of ability to argue the issues intellectually on his own. I hope they disseminate that power point presentation all over the world. It shows, not just Abraham’s want of capability, but the one’s that disseminate it also.
BTW, did you notice how later he rationalized the disappearance of the MWP? And, did you buy into it?

Those who can, do, those who can’t teach.

Just because someone had the money (and lack of drive) to sit and listen to people that “can’t”, for an extended period of time, doesn’t make them “scientists”, it makes them leaches on society.

Now, if they came up with something useful, they could call themselves decedents of Newton or some other person of value.

Steven, sorry, I can’t help it, but, …….I wouldn’t put a lot of weight into what some sharp character did on an Osborne 1 almost 30 years ago. While I could go into the multi-directional emission of heat by our friendly CO2 and the one-way absorption theory, you’ve already been there and I see no need. I liken the CO2 problem as a question of : If I spit in the ocean, will the sea levels rise? Yes, until the sun evaporates it. It is amazing to me that the alarmist have just now realized the water budget. H2O doesn’t die or go away, it simply moves to different forms. Oddly, they consider that to be the only element to have a budget. The earth does, too. But wind and fire?

I’m a genuinely great admirer of yours when it comes to your tireless role in combating alarmism. But Maggie Thatcher, with respect, initiated changes to British society which in my opinion have made it sick. In a way, I think that actually fosters alarmism through misplaced and confused reactions to the over-emphasised values of materialism and greed. Great changes in society perhaps inevitably contain the seeds of their own potential destruction – in ways that aren’t necessarily the right corrective.

“Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.”

Thus spake Gordon Gekko in the film “Wall street”; but now we have lost our sense of a deeper morality and hankering after Truth. Sooner or later, this will necessarily result in a proper correction; let’s just hope that when it comes, it won’t be unbearably painful.

As I indicated, when it comes to your fight against alarmism, I hold you in the highest esteem. You have more commonsense in your little finger than all the opposition put together. They are “frit” of you, as Maggie might have put it, and rightfully so. All power to your elbow, sir!

Derek B, Demolition? For Chris Monckton (or anybody else with half a brain) it would be like being savaged by a dead sheep. I saw the insulting garbage on George Monbiot’s blog too. As Mr Monckton says, 14th grade zoologist? Now that is a demolition and an insult to 14th grade Zoologists.

Many thanks for the article and for the reminder of Mr thatcher, the greatest UK politician at least in my lifetime

Christopher of Brenchley, hope I can address you as such, I used to be envious of you guys with those Osborns. My Wang computer weighed at least 15 stones and definitly wasn’t what you call portable.

So you have loved programming from way back too, now I know how you know so much. Those were the days, right? People today don’t have the foggy what I am talking about but you do, that I am certain of after reading above! Write you DBMS in the top 48K so you still had 16K left for all of your hundreds of programs, chain as necessary!

James sexton. Sorry, RTE’s are working everyday physics. Ask anybody who has designed a space borne sensor looking down, or an earth bound sensor looking up,
or a platform trying to hide from sensors that see longwave radiation. Like this gorgeous beast:

As I can attest the same physics that predicts (first order) warming from C02 was used to design this plane. Because that physics works.

Feedbacks… that’s a separate question, but GHGs including H20 and C02 do exactly what the RTE equations say they do. Of course, way back then in the 80s I would have been sent to jail for some of the information here

Read the section on IR stealth. In order to understand whether or not the plane
radiating IR at 50K feet could be seen on the ground required that we understand how IR travels through the atmosphere. The physics are well known and are described by the RTEs. In order to make the plane less visible in IR .. well go read what we did. That’s not all of it.

Here is Lady Thatcher’s speech on climate change, Nov 6 1990. She must have forgotten Lord M’s advice. An excerpt:

“I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change,…. blah blah.”

And then immediately goes on to say:

“Of course, much more research is needed. We don’t yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. The IPCC report is very careful on this point. For instance, the total amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere each year from natural sources is some 600 billion tonnes, while the figure resulting from human activities is only 26 billion tonnes. In relative terms that is not very significant. Equally we know that the increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere date from the start of the industrial revolution. And we know that those concentrations will continue to rise if we fail to act.

Nor do we know with any precision the extent of the likely warming in the next century, nor what the regional effects will be, and we can’t be sure of the role of the clouds. “

you trust the temperature record? hehe. In any complex system you are going to see transient responses that go in opposite direction to the forcing. You should know this, but over time as internal inertias are played out the forcing will have its way. As I said, increased GHGs won’t cool the planet in the long term. You are not arguing that they will are you?

Monckton is a right wing fantasist. Margaret Thatcher was a relatively rare creature in nature, the female psychopath, and there are millions of people waiting to dance on her grave.

She is also absolutely reponsible for the politicisation of the global warming scam. Her speech at the UN and the establishment of the Hadley centre and the appointment of environmentalists Sir John Houghton and Phil Jones. She turned Britain into a post industrial banking fiefdom, and that is a big clue as to what is happening.

Thatcher was selected as party because her husband Dennis was a director of Burmah oil. Big American oil interests loved the war against coal (and the unions). Norman Tebbit stood aside to let her run. There is absolutely zero chance the tories would have elected a woman in the 1970s without some ulterior motive. Women hardly even drove cars in the UK then (if a man was available).

Monckton simply does not want to face up to that fact. It doesn’t suit his (slightly outdated) anti communist agenda.

I know it doesn’t go down well here, but the fact is, Eric Paisley is spot on with this comment, and this highlights the dangers of polarizing the AGW issue into simple political caregories. The fact is, the AGW agenda is a tool of oppression which is being used by governments and high powered corporations run by liars of every political stripe.

Increasing GHGs will increase the earth temperature. Lord M, Christy, Spenser, Lindzen concur on this. The issue is how much.

I notice you make the implicit assumption that increasing co2 won’t lead to decreasing water vapour or increased cloud cover. No-one to my knowledge has yet refuted Miscolzci.

What we do know is that the ocean loses more heat through evaporation than it does through radiation. And it’s water in it’s various forms which is the big dog on the climate block. Higher temperature will cause more evaporation. Whether that will lead to faster hydrological cycling, more cloud cover, shifted jet streams causing cooling we are not sure. From where I’m sitting, Water vapour looks like the regulator of Earth’s temperature, and Earth has shown itself to be pretty stable temperature wise on geological timescales, give or take the regular ice ages.

Interesting. As a right wing European politician Thatcher was still way to the left of American presidents ( yes, even Obama). Hopefully understanding this will end all this nonesense about warmist agendas being linked to left wing thought. America does not have left wing politicians, in practise they range from the right wing to far right in politics. European politics are very different.

Margaret Thatcher let the Hadley Centre genie out of the bottle and promoted it globally – Nigel Lawson as Chancellor found the money to pay for it… It has become obvious since that Crispin Tickle, John Houghton, and others had their own agendas and that the early IPCC Reports were the foundation upon which the current politicised AGW drivel is based.

What has not been obvious by word or deed until very recently is that either Thatcher or Lawson had any misgivings at the time about the direction the IPCC and so-called climate science was taking or that they initiated any steps to put the AGW genie back in the bottle…

So I still regard them both as being part of the problem and not a significant part of the solution.

Spenser/Spencer:
The poet and the guy from Boston whose first name we do not know have two “s”, Roy W. has an “s” and a “c”.
(I was just on a cruise and read one book by “c” and 8 books about “s”. All 9 were very good. Highly recommended.)

By the way, the nicely retouched image of Thatcher looking all regal in the headline pic should be contrasted with one of the clips of her the British nation laughed it’s collective arses off at on the best political lampoon tv show ever: Spitting Image.

“Anthony, given the near total demolition of Monckton’s credibility handed out by John Abraham (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/), letting the laird flaunt his wit on WUWT does not enhance the blog’s reputation for accuracy and fairness.”

I had previously seen that link about Abrahams critique and sat all the way through it. I think we must see things in context. Monckton has become a bit of a showman. I certainly don’t agree with everything he says or the manner in which he expresses it. Although he is mostly right he can be prone to a degree of exaggeration.

However, when talking to a large group of laymen on a complex subject it is necessary for someone like Monckton to make headline points that will grab the audiences attention. I saw Dr Ian Stewart do this at Southampton folowing his BBC Climate wars tv programme and several of us gasped audibly at some of the things he asserted as factual. (Dr Stewart -probably like Abrahams-is a charming man in real life)

Abrahams is writing/speaking a rebuttal that will be read/heard in a quite different context to that of Monckton. Many of those readers will be alarmists and some might already have an element of knowledge.

I quite liked Abrahams character, his modest way of speaking and apparent thoroughness. I thought his presentation rather dull and found it difficult to keep relating back to the original slides of Monktons that he was referencing.

I thought a number of Abrahams points to be rather questionable-particularly those relating to temperatures, ancient and modern. (Sea level rise is also another hockey stick waiting to be broken) There were also several other pieces where he highlighted information that was too small to be properly read and asserted it disproved Monckton when it didn’t.

If anyone had the time it would be most interesting to do a critique of Abrahams critique. I suspect it wouldn’t hold up to the cold light of day as well as some of his cheerleaders on this blog might expect. I would do it myself but I have six articles on the stocks, all at varying stages of incompleteness, including ones on the LIA, MWP and Arctic ice melt through the ages . Consequently I do not have the time to get involved in other projects (unless Big Wind will fund it)

If any of the regular contributors here have the time and interest however I think a dissection of Abrahams work would be a worthwhile exercise.

Mr Mosher
The physics is simple and never in doubt (why do people like you not understand that) what is in dispute is the actual forcing in a real atmospheric situation as opposed to a physics book or lab experiment that can not simulate an atmosphere. The workings of anti stealth technology also has no relevance whatsoever to climate, the article you referenced was merely a statement of the obvious. The actual radiative forcing of CO2 has been seen to be weak whatever the physics says. Or are you saying there are some unforseen positive feedbacks that haven’t shown themselves yet?

Someone once said that “All political lives end in failure”, and Margaret Thatcher was no exception. She is the main reason that her Conservative Party has failed to gain a majority in Parliament since the election of her successor, John Major, in 1992. In Wales, Scotland, and the North of England, the public became so disgusted with her policies that the opposition Labour party has an almost permanent stranglehold on seats there. Most of the alienation and disillusion came from Mrs Thatcher’s personal arrogance and increased centralised personal power around her and her “Policy Unit”.
In the end, she was run out of office by her own party colleagues, afraid of a electoral disaster.

Lord Monckton may try to bask in the reflected glory of the Iron Lady, and from what I read he needs a boost right now, but Mrs Thatcher was not all she is cracked up to be. A more sober and realistic appraisal of her career might come to different conclusions.

Interesting. As a right wing European politician Thatcher was still way to the left of American presidents ( yes, even Obama). Hopefully understanding this will end all this nonesense about warmist agendas being linked to left wing thought. America does not have left wing politicians, in practise they range from the right wing to far right in politics. European politics are very different.

You can’t end “nonesense” with an absurd, baseless, ludicrous, nonsensical assertion.

The left in America has been attempting to socialize the country for decades. What they can’t do legally they bypass the system. Failed to learn the harsh lessons of socialized medicine from all of the other countries mired in it? Bring in an even more obviously flawed version! Can’t pass insane and crippling “cap and trade”? Re-classify one of the most essential parts of food production as a “pollutant”.

If you honestly believe Zero-bama is anywhere to the right of anything approaching center, then your perspective has to be just shy of Mao and somewhere between Mussolini and Che.

Like tonyb I sat through John Abrahams’ critique of Lord Monckton’s presentation, and my main question for Lord Monckton is this:

How was John Abrahams able to contact all the sources for your talk, but you, apparently, were not? How come some of the authors you cited had not even heard of you? One would have that thought that someone delivering a presentation based on the best of current science would have taken the trouble to contact at least some of the sources involved, and ascertain that they agreed with what was being presented?

Someone mentioned Al Gore above, and of course Mr Gore has also been accused of errors and misrepresentations. But al least Gore seems to have based his talks on the best of the science available to him, actually talked to scientists and used a science advisor.

quote In any complex system you are going to see transient responses that go in opposite direction to the forcing. You should know this, but over time as internal inertias are played out the forcing will have its way. As I said, increased GHGs won’t cool the planet in the long term. You are not arguing that they will are you? unquote

If the Earth is a homeostatic system then all bets are off, and increased GHGs, while not cooling, may not within pretty wide limits be warming. There are places in climate science where assumptions are made but not spelled out, and the idea that simply adding an amount of CO2 X will, at once or eventually, lead to Y amount of warming is not something I’ve seen demonstrated. It may be true, but have _you_ seen it demonstrated? This is not to deny the greenhouse effect, it is to question its relevance (within those bounds) in a complex system at the edge of the water/vapour/ice boundary.

The atmospheric equilibrium will (would have) depended on some balance of inputs and outputs. The big assumption of climate science is that our contribution to the change from a stable state is adding CO2, but I see no reason to prefer that explanation to the idea that we have disrupted the feedbacks. Put simply, the idea that we can alter the major effect, CO2, seems less likely to me than the notion of altering the feedback mechanisms which maintain the homeostasis.

I once wrote a (very basic and inefficient, 32k BBC Micro) Daisy World. In Lovelock’s idea the daisies grow black when it’s cold and white when it’s hot, so hotter worlds will increase their albedo and resist further warming, cooler worlds the other way round. Current CO2-driven climate change theory is like assuming that digging up the white daisies is the only way to produce the effect we see. I’d rather see some thought devoted to what would happen if we are e.g. dirtying the daisies.

We are dirtying the white daisies in the Gulf at the moment. Smoothed by oil sheen the water is warming up during the day, not cooling so quickly at night. If anyone has two ounces of common-sense then they are checking the aerosol production from oil-polluted waves. Someone at NASA must, surely, be analysing any changes in low-level cloud cover to see if oily water does effect the cloud just above it.

Here’s a mechanism which might have been in action before anthropogenic damage was done. A warmer world means more wind. It also means more breaking waves, more cloud nuclei so more low-level cloud, a cooling feedback. More wind means a rougher sea which means a greater albedo and, during the day, more solar short wave radiation reflected, a cooling feedback. Rougher water has greater emissivity so during the night it cools more rapidly than smoothed water, a cooling feedback.

Please provide some evidence for your claim polar bears are increasing. You say its everywhere on the web, and yes, on blogs it is. But the current population status can be found here:http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
Of the 19 polar bear populations, 8 are declining, 3 are stable, 1 is increasing, and 7 have insufficient data

Those who are discussing the warming properties of CO2 may need to remember that CO2 also helps cool.
Trenberth claims 70% of cooling is via GHG’s. If true, then there may be a threshold where additional CO2 may actually cool the planet. Would explain some ice ages no?

Now, the Nunavut claimed their polar bear populations were thriving. How do your “officials” respond?
The first 2 paragraphs affectively say “we are the authority, we were chosen by political groups, we know best, we are scientists.” (read it if you don’t believe me.)
The rest of the response is ALL ABOUT HOW CLIMATE CHANGE WILL AFFECT POLAR BEARS. The rest is all about how they had a meeting here and a meeting there and it was resolved yada yada yada.

However, IT’S INSTRUCTIVE TO NOTE THAT NOWHERE…THATS NOWHERE IN THEIR RESPONSE DOES THE PBSG REFUTE THE NANAVUT CLAIM THAT THEIR POLAR BEARS ARE THRIVING.
the PBSG is a political organization whose word I wouldn’t trust if my life (or that of a poly berra) depended on it.

I have the very highest regard for Christopher Monckton, but something seems to be seriously missing from his narrative.
From her published speeches as well as some recordings it seems very clear that at one stage Mrs Thatcher fully believed in the global warming scare. Until last Sunday I assumed that she still believed in it.
But, thanks to Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph, I now know that, as of 2003 at least, she is now a convinced climate change sceptic.
This is of course wonderful news. If there’s one thing better than an influential climate sceptic, it’s one who was once a true believer but who is now a sceptic. I would be fascinated to know how exactly this change came about.
Chris

Mosher
“In any complex system you are going to see transient responses that go in opposite direction to the forcing. You should know this, but over time as internal inertias are played out the forcing will have its way. As I said, increased GHGs won’t cool the planet in the long term. You are not arguing that they will are you? ”

Staying within the bounds of what you said…

When we say something like “CO2 causes warming, the only question is how much”, as you did above and to which I responded, we are already outside the realm of direct causation. More so when you bring up the issue of ‘system inertia’, which implies that there are meta-CO2 processes.

So a statement like ‘CO2 causes warming’ is not completely accurate, is it? Just nitpicking basically. ;)

As for the temperature record, let us just say I am skeptical of the exercise.

Yes, their statement isn’t very helpful. However I have no reason to believe the government of Nunavut. Of course they would rather not have the polar bears listed as vulnerable. So you say that “NOWHERE IN THEIR RESPONSE DOES THE PBSG REFUTE THE NANAVUT CLAIM THAT THEIR POLAR BEARS ARE THRIVING.” No, but their website is quite clear, you can find (albeit sparse) data their, and the government of Nunavut did not give ANY EVIDENCE that polar bear populations are not decreasing, they just say “We understand the polar bears, and we do actually think our polar bear population is very very healthy, with the exception of a couple of populations that we are taking action on.”

Your statement that PBSG is a political organization is laughable. the Nunavut government isn’t political? I really don’t understand why you distrust the official organization while trusting a government without question. The PBSG is at least an independent organization.

Of course there is much uncertainty about polar bears populations and the relation to climate change. However, just shouting that polar bears populations are increasing as James Sexton did, while the best estimates are that they are not, is very unhelpful, to say the least.

Let me say this more clearly. The article is pure fiction. It’s all very well for Monckton to tour the USA and play up to his naive, right wing audiences with his semi aristocratic background, but he can’t fool everyone. Yes, he is right about AGW science and an excellent speaker, but he is a complete political liability and the loosest cannon on earth.

Point taken about the Nanavut government.
But I wouldn’t laugh at my statement that the PBSG is a political organization. They sold their scientific soul long ago. (did you read how long and how many meetings it took for them to decide what the numbers were? The process they undertook was political, not scientific)
The money (and limelight) is rolling in…..so long as the bears are seen to be in danger from mans emissions.

Therefore, we may all conclude that none of us know whether PB populations are growing or declining, and the cause(s) of either.

I’m trying to find the statement from a former PBSG member, their most experienced, who resigned over this politicization. Maybe others can help.

Thank you Lord Monckton.
The scientific brigade are their own worst enemies by quoting each other and trying to use their positioning as being absolute authority instead of using facts to back-up their claims.

I don’t believe Christopher Monckton gave anything like an adequate account of the transition… and if anything, he implied there was no transition because she was always reasonably skeptical.

But the facts do not seem to agree with that and it’s something I think, fairly, that Anthony should ask Christopher if he wishes to comment on here.

I have no problem with Lady Thatcher having changed her mind. I’m glad she did … and I hope we’re all right, of course, because if we’re not, then the consequences could indeed be as dire as Lady Thatcher once warned the world.

The best model of the Earth is the Earth itself. It leaves nothing out and everything is replicated in real time and actual size. Look back at the geological evidence and see whether irreversable thermal runaway occurred when carbon-dioxide levels were much higher than now. They did not. Admittedly, the continents were not then as presently configured but how can such a detail prevent the mighty molecule that becircles the Earth like a Colossus having its sway?

“George remembers how he and the Prime Minister chuckled at the irony of writing a speech about “global warming” on an evening so cold that he could hardly hold his pen.”

Well did she say that she would put money on the table at the Royal Society, if they make AGW look real, Christopher Monckton? (as quoted from an ex-editor of New Scientist, in the Great Global Warming Swindle)

toby says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:09 am
(…)
Someone mentioned Al Gore above, and of course Mr Gore has also been accused of errors and misrepresentations. But al least Gore seems to have based his talks on the best of the science available to him, actually talked to scientists and used a science advisor.
—————Reply:
You have GOT to be kidding. Right?
(I think your term “seems” is a stretch of unparalleled magnitude! Besides, since Gore doesn’t talk to anybody credible (he certainly doesn’t do debates, now, does he?) you’re dreaming if you think his talks have any credibility at all! Mr. Carbon Credit “Millions of Degrees” Gore is a scientific joke!)

baahumbug says:
June 17, 2010 at 2:16 am
Those who are discussing the warming properties of CO2 may need to remember that CO2 also helps cool.
Trenberth claims 70% of cooling is via GHG’s. If true, then there may be a threshold where additional CO2 may actually cool the planet. Would explain some ice ages no?

No because CO2 is lower during Ice Ages… Oceans can uptake more if colder for one

” toby says:
[…]
Someone mentioned Al Gore above, and of course Mr Gore has also been accused of errors and misrepresentations. But al least Gore seems to have based his talks on the best of the science available to him, actually talked to scientists and used a science advisor.”

“I’m trying to find the statement from a former PBSG member, their most experienced, who resigned over this politicization. Maybe others can help.”

I would be interested, thanks.

“Therefore, we may all conclude that none of us know whether PB populations are growing or declining, and the cause(s) of either.”

That’s a valid point I think. I have no reason yet to be sceptical towards PBSG, but I haven’t looked into that in detail. I think we can be sure that there is much uncertainty about polar bears populations, whether declining or increasing, let alone the causes. But I haven’t seen any data yet that globally populations are increasing, while I have seen data that say they are decreasing, so I would bet on the latter. It should also be noted that it just isn’t so easy to estimate polar bear populations, as there are actually few measurements.

Let me add just one aspect to my previous comment belittling Mr. Gore. In one of his presentations, he shows a history of CO2 and temperature during the past several hundred thousand years. The two graphs are shown separated–one above the other. His representation of this data is the only one I’ve seen where they are separated–it isn’t an original slide that he shows–no, he had it reconstructed. And he does this to be deceptive. He states that CO2 drives the temperature. (Gasps from the audience, naturally!)

However, if the two graphs are superimposed, you’d see that CO2 lags the temperature by about 800 years! Causation?

I’ll describe Gore’s “causation”. Either Gore and/or his “science” advisers knew the implications of keeping the two graphs superimposed–it would debunk their theory regarding CO2 rather than support it, so they split the graphs and required that the audience trust their interpretation.

As a consequence, he (and/or his “science” advisors) are demonstrable liars. Got that? LIARS!

So by supporting Mr. Gore’s assertions, are you either unaware of his nefarious scheme, or are you a liar too?

(And oh yes, I’ve heard all sorts of apologists explain this away–how there is perhaps some magical, invisible future forcing where the lagging CO2 somehow caused temperatures to rise (and fall) ~800 years BEFORE IT did. Again, you’ve GOT to be kidding! Right? Conclusion? They deal in lies.)

1. milanovic says:
June 17, 2010 at 2:14 amhttp://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
Of the 19 polar bear populations, 8 are declining, 3 are stable, 1 is increasing, and 7 have insufficient data
But of course you don’t believe these official numbers I guess?

In the 1960s, there were probably 5,000 polar bears around the globe. Forty years later – thanks largely to a reduction in hunting – the World Conservation Union (IUCN) counts five-times that many. Hunting remains the overwhelming governor of polar bear numbers. It’s a lot easier to blame climate change than lose the trade on polar bear pelts by banning hunting eh!
5000 in 1960s before hunting controls to 25000 currently.
This could be interpreted in some circles as an increase in numbers

baahumbug says:
June 17, 2010 at 2:16 am
If true, then there may be a threshold where additional CO2 may actually cool the planet. Would explain some ice ages no?

You are one of a very few people that are actually closer to the truth than you think.
Our planet has generated a highly complex protection system for protecting water from mass evaporation and overheating. Look at the salinity changes that are occuring on the surface of the oceans and ask why is the salt accumulating when there is not massive evaporation to concentrate this? The only possible answer would be changes to the atmospheric pressure which with centrifugal force exerts outward. Our atmosphere rotating with the planet is elastistic and can stretch, hense growth up mountains.

Sorry dude, your incorrect!
Ice Ages kill off plant and animal life and creates massive ice fields that prevent gases from forming which then lower the gases through time by allowing the natural gas processes to escape in space.

We should hedge our bets and introduce the polar bear to Antarctica. Think of how much grant money the PBSG could claim for setting up a southern operation! Think of all the Photoshopped Image opportunities, and the blog$$$!

Should I try to explain this? At the end of an ice age temperature start increasing. This causes CO2 release from the oceans, which starts a positive feedback that enhances temperature increase. So back then, temperature increase was first, CO2 increase enhanced temperature increase. Nowadays, CO2 increases by human emissions, which could again start such a positive feedback. That temperature was first during the ice ages doesn’t imply that the other way around is not possible. This has nothing to do with a “magical invisible future forcing”, which is just rediculous.

So instead of calling All Gore and his science advisors liars, it would be advisable to first inform yourself.

Brought back memories of the first desktop computer I designed and built — used a Z80 8bit CPU. Programmed it in machine language (not assembler). Shortly after, such computers became commercial — so I bought one I could program in BASIC.

It was my observation (working at NASA, now retired) that Engineering and Science graduates who use “black box” “applications” to make their calculations, seem to have lost the ability to “look behind the curtain” — an ability that Christopher and some “old timers” had of necessity.

puts the weight at 24.5 lbs. Well, I’ve been telling people for years that it weighed 28 lbs, so I guess I was wrong also. I do remember lugging it across country, and yes, it would fit under the seat in an airplane. But due to its weight, I came to calling it “transportable” rather than portable, and likened it to a lightweight sewing machine. It was certainly a marvel, for its day and time, and has earned a storied place in the history of personal computers. Besides the software bundle that came with it for the $1795 base price — and bundling the software was a big attraction — I paid another $1200 (as I recall) for a statistics bundle, all the stat routines running in BASIC, of course.

And so began a law that existed for a long time: “the computer you want always costs $3000.” There would be cheaper computers to come along, but for the longest time, it always seemed that the leading edge hardware, the PC with the fasted processor, fastest video card, most memory and disk space, cost about 3 grand. And I imagine that one could still chunk down 3 grand for a high end gaming PC these days, but my current desktop machine, purchased 18 months ago, with a quad-4 AMD processor, 640 GB hard drive, 6GB of memory, and a wide 19″ flat screen came for just under $1000, and with a color printer to boot.

The color printer sits unused, though, still in the box, because I’ve already got three printers, two of them color. When I asked about discounting the price of the PC I was buying by skipping the printer, I was told that the price was for the bundle including the printer, and that it would cost more without the printer! Seems that all those “deals” with bundled printers are being subsidized by the printer manufacturers, who as we all know will practically give printers away so they can make their money on consumables. So Adam Osborne’s lesson of bundling was well learned.

But it was a lesson lost on a generation of economists who went around preaching reform of regulated industries that “bundled” prices were “inefficient.” They tried mightily — and for a time and in various places succeeded — to put an end to “flat rate” pricing, and pushed for “unbundling” prices, especially in telecommunications. So, for a while, you couldn’t get flat rate telephone service any longer. It had to be metered, and charged by the minute, even for local service. But it was just an academic fantasy, a phase that the real world soon grew out of, where now for $60 a month I get not just unlimited local service, but unlimited long distance (within the US), and for a few dollars more, unlimited Internet. Seems that bundling makes some kind of economic sense in the real world, just not in the fantasy world of theoretical economics.

The point of this long post being…besides the opportunity to wax nostalgic…that when the academy meets main street/wall street, the academy eventually loses. Let’s hope history keeps repeating itself, and the academy (the AGW, we gotta do something about it NOW scientific “consensus”) will eventually lose here, too, and common sense will prevail. The so-called “experts” are not always right.

“In the 1960s, there were probably 5,000 polar bears around the globe”
Could very well be, do you know somewhere where I can find the data? The only reference I could find for this statement is Fox news, without any source (not surprisingly)

. Forty years later – thanks largely to a reduction in hunting – the World Conservation Union (IUCN) counts five-times that many.

Could be, but in any case, this isn’t the issue. It could be that the reduction of hunting has helped polar bears in the 70s-80s but now it appears that polar bears are declining.

As you could have read, I said that ” think we can be sure that there is much uncertainty about polar bears populations, whether declining or increasing, let alone the causes.” Whether it is hunting or global warming, I don’t know and it is probably speculation. But what I oppose is the shouting here that polar bear numbers are increasing, without any proof or reference, while the only data that is available suggests that numbers are decreasing.

Anthony, given the near total demolition of Monckton’s credibility handed out by John Abraham…”
Sorry boy. Invoking the IPCC and this Abraham bozo as an appeal to authority do not enhance your credibility at all.
Pretty much destroys it as a matter of fact.
Go count the polar bears.

But Milanovic, what could it be that caused the temperature rise at the end of the ice age that cause all of that CO2 to belch out of the oceans? Do you understand solubility laws? However you look at it it seems to be always temperature leading CO2 and no, it is not a positive CO2 feedback.

But Milanovic, what could it be that caused the temperature rise at the end of the ice age that caused all of that CO2 to belch out of the oceans. Do you understand solubility laws? However you look at it it seems to be always temperature leading CO2 and no it is not a positive CO2 feedback.

So instead of calling All Gore and his science advisors liars, it would be advisable to first inform yourself.”

Apart from certain facts, you’d be right (And for CO2 emissions, which is the whole point, you’d be very wrong). The Gore family wealth WAS/IS derived from oil (Oxy), and locals of their wells are still waiting for their share for Gore’s “pollution” profit, and still waiting for Oxy to “clean up”. Al Gore does, potentailly, seem to gain from “carbon trading”, after all, he does have a UK based carbon trading company (Before carbon credits tanked largely around UK VAT fraud etc). Al also was the well connected buddie of Eron, who first muted a carbon trading emission systems, which they both would gain from. Al “invented” the internet, not quite true, but hey he is a politician aftera all. And that, a few “kilometers” below the surface of the Earth, the temerature is in the millions (Personally I think he was refering to his bank ballance in millions of millions of $$’s, but I am sceptical of an oil barron interested in carbon trading). And apart from the most salient fact that, which you blatantly ignore, he IS a politician! He’s a proven liar!!!

Should I try to explain this? At the end of an ice age temperature start increasing. This causes CO2 release from the oceans, which starts a positive feedback that enhances temperature increase. So back then, temperature increase was first, CO2 increase enhanced temperature increase. Nowadays, CO2 increases by human emissions, which could again start such a positive feedback. That temperature was first during the ice ages doesn’t imply that the other way around is not possible. This has nothing to do with a “magical invisible future forcing”, which is just rediculous.

So instead of calling All Gore and his science advisors liars, it would be advisable to first inform yourself.
————————Reply:
You can try and you will fail, because what I’m saying is that YOU are the uninformed one. Consider this:

“Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 300 ppm. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes– confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain– earth’s climate has been warming and cooling on it’s own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due– some say overdue– for return to another icehouse climate!”

Believing anything else is such a stretch of logic as to be illogical. And to prove the point, the decrease in CO2 lagged a drop in temperature while going into a glacial epoch AND CO2 lagged a temperature increase while going into an interglacial.

You can’t have it both ways and support your “logic”. In other words, to do so, you’d have to believe that CO2 acted to both cause a temperature increase AND a temperature decrease. Magic!

You think way too small. It is you who are looking at the wrong time scale. Your link merely covers the last 400K years, the blink of a geologic eye. FYI, there were Ice Ages before that. Many of them, in fact. But thanx for playing.

Ah, now CO2 CHANGE should lag temperature. Please look at the axis of your graph, this is something totally different. In this way all long term variation is filtered out.

Are you implying that recent temperature increases cause CO2 increase in the atmosphere? If so, how do you explain that with:
1) The precise correlation between CO2 emmissions and CO2 increase
2) the evidence from CO2 isotopes?

I have to chuckle when those earnestly attempting to denigrate Lord Monckton, Viscount Christopher Benchley, quote Al Gore and his ‘science advisors’ as their authority!
The Viscount may over-egg things a smidgen for effect but I consider his style inimitable and he skewers opponents verbally, factually and logically.

My dear Lord!…so you were the father of the “creature”, which, since then, has afflicted the world!…it could be said also that you created Al Baby himself!“My advice was straightforward: CO2 concentrations were rising, we were causing it, and it would cause some warming”

Here, maybe this will help. “…a simple visual examination of the author’s plot of CO2 and climate vs. time clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the atmospheric CO2 record occured either totally or partially within periods of time when earth’s climate was relatively cool.”

CO2 has little effect on temperature, so you can quit worrying. Unless, of course, you have a need to worry about non-problems. Some folks have that need.

I cut my teeth on a WANG workstation at the old VA hospital and created plate sized square floppies (when they really were floppy) of number crunching data. Then we switched to little Mac SE’s with the built in handle and these unbelievably small hard square disks. Still called them floppies though. We also used Hypercard as our go-to data entry screen. Loved that program and the intuitive language used to create all kinds of neat little subroutines. That little computer was kind of a precursor to the tough notebooks. If you dropped it, no problem. Still worked. I bought a statistical program to crunch numbers on that little machine. Spent many wonderful days using Statview SE on collected data at the research facility in Portland, Oregon.

(And oh yes, I’ve heard all sorts of apologists explain this away–how there is perhaps some magical, invisible future forcing where the lagging CO2 somehow caused temperatures to rise (and fall) ~800 years BEFORE IT did. Again, you’ve GOT to be kidding! Right? Conclusion? They deal in lies.)

I have never gotten an intelligent answer to this. We’re all familiar with the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, but this one is “pre hoc, ergo propter hoc!”

Derek B says: … near total demolition of Monckton’s credibility … by John Abraham.

Well, I took 10 minutes to go through that.
– “who is funding Soon?” Stupid question but in most examples given, it’s NASA together with others, Abraham doesn’t like. But NASA got a recommendation on slide 114.
Btw. CRU was funded by BP(!) and Shell. So BigOil provides Global Warming data?
Gimme a break, sir.
– Sea level rise.One of the researchers admits that rising has stopped, as Monckton said, but adds this may not be the case for ever. Fine. Nobody had said this.

My conclusion: Abraham’s not worth reading. Must be nice in the ivory tower.

“They aren’t the words of a scientist, because he wasn’t responding to one.”

Even if one chooses to ignore Abraham’s scientific credentials (which you apparently are) I fail to see how a response like Monckton’s is at all justified even if the person he was responding to wasn’t actually a scientist. Instead of writing this lengthy response to your post, should I instead be talking about how ugly you are? I’m really shocked that you find Monckton justified in tossing all those insults Abraham’s way.

“I just listened to Abraham’s blather. In the first two minutes he moaned about polar bears and the threat to them. (I guess he didn’t bother to read about how they are growing in population.) ”

Is there anything to read? I’ve only seen links to the contrary posted in this thread so far. Also seems as if Monckton hasn’t read these mystery papers either since he doesn’t address Abraham’s polar bear moaning at all in his response.

“He appealed to authority. (Because Christopher holds no scientific degree he obviously is incapable of clear thinking.) And quoted debunked studies.(I guess he didn’t bother to read the critiques, probably because the critics don’t hold a climatologist degree and therefore incapable of independent thought.)”

Actually, Abraham says “You can be knowledgeable about areas outside of your formal areas of expertise. But, never the less, we want to think about the backgrounds people have when we ascribe credibility to the comments that they make. Particularly for Chris Monckton. If you listen to his talk you’ll find he disagrees with every major science organization. Many have official positions on climate change.So what is it the he knows that everyone else doesn’t know? What is it about his background which has allowed him to see something that these other scientists haven’t seen?” Seems pretty even handed to me. I think we’d all like to know just what Monckton knows that everyone else doesn’t…

“Cal, have you ever programed in machine language? Me either. ”

Other than his unsupported statements above, I don’t see any proof that Monckton has either. In any case, what is the relevance of having programmed in machine language?

“You ever reverse engineer a com protocol? I did.”

Nope. So what?

“Do you know what engineering degree I hold? None. So, does that mean I can’t hold my own and rise above, intellectually, engineers?”

Nope. I don’t know of anyone mentioned in this thread, including Abraham, who has said this.

“Abraham’s lack of knowledge regarding the polar bear is unforgivable, given he takes Monckton to task over the issue.”

See above.

“His appeal to authority shows his lack of ability to argue the issues intellectually on his own. I hope they disseminate that power point presentation all over the world. It shows, not just Abraham’s want of capability, but the one’s that disseminate it also.”

I really don’t see how you could look at Abraham’s presentation and then at Monckton’s response and argue that Abraham was the one who has shown the inability to argue issues intellectually.

“BTW, did you notice how later he rationalized the disappearance of the MWP? And, did you buy into it?”

No. I actually do think the MWP disappearance is a less straightforward issue than Abraham presented, but I did buy into the slides where he showed how Monckton was misrepresenting the conclusions of some of the 700 MWP scientists.

“Those who can, do, those who can’t teach.

Just because someone had the money (and lack of drive) to sit and listen to people that “can’t”, for an extended period of time, doesn’t make them “scientists”, it makes them leaches on society.

Now, if they came up with something useful, they could call themselves decedents of Newton or some other person of value.”

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Is this supposed to be a criticism of Abraham somehow?

Pictured along with the Osbourne and Kaypro is one my first designs. The “luggable” at the bottom left in the cover photo was designed by yours truly, my boss and VP of engineering, plus one good mechanical design guy. It was my very first job as a design engineer. Me and my boss from back then still work together today. I did mostly software and he did hardware which is still true today although we can both crossover quite well. I have less patience than he does so the instant gratification nature of software development appeals to me more.

Sorry Derreck B, but every single study cited by Abraham in his attempt to refute Monkton has been refuted. Monkton has the real data on his side, whereas Abraham has the trumped up data on his side (which has since been refuted by the real data)

Secondly, his and my politics are very different: he is a right wing Tory and I am a left wing socialist.

Thirdly, his and my accounts of Mrs Thatcher’s involvement in the start of the global warming scare seem to be very different. But I write to say that together they provide a coherent whole which explains the quotations from Mrs Thatcher that several have posted above in attempts to discredit Lord Monckton’s account. I now write to explain the coherence of his and my accounts.

My account derives from 1981 (i.e. before the global warming scare existed) and an extract with updates was published on the web in the late 1990s. The updated extract can be seen athttp://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

The origin of my account is as follows.

In 1980 the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) commissioned me to investigate if there were potential environmental scares that would be as damaging to the coal industry as the ‘acid rain’ scare that was then raging. I interviewed as wide a range of interested parties as I could to determine
(a) potential ‘environmental’ scares
and
(b) factors likely to influence development of the potential scares.
I collated my findings as influence diagrams that would indicate if there were sufficient reason for any of the identified potential scares to develop into a problem.

I presented my report of my findings to BACM in 1981. That report identified several potential scares and it concluded that two of them could become significant problems; these two were ‘micro dust’ and ‘global warming’. Importantly, it concluded that ‘global warming’ was likely to grow to displace all other environmental issues whether or not ‘global warming’ obtained any supporting scientific evidence.

BACM had not heard of ‘global warming’ before receipt of my report, and they rejected my report because they consider its conclusion about ‘global warming’ to be “extreme” and “fanciful”. Since then global warming has displaced all other environmental issues but has failed to obtain any supporting scientific evidence.

In the late 1990s the late John Daly asked me to update the part of my 1981 report for BACM that concerned ‘global warming’, and he posted that as the article on his website athttp://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Consideration of the influence diagrams in that article shows my reasons for the surprising conclusions presented in my 1981 paper. As the article says;

“Many positive feedback loops exist in the system and the major ones are shown in Figure 2. The system amplifier is the politicians’ support of global warming. The issue is assisted by gaining political approval each time it passes around a loop shown in Figure 2.”

So, from its start the global warming issue was political and not scientific. Indeed, remove all mention of science from Figure 2 and the feedback loops that generated the scare would remain.

And the political initiation was from Mrs Thatcher. As the article explains:

“Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.)

Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. The influences that enabled this are described in Figure 1 and the following paragraphs.”

And an update from my 1981 report in the article says;

“Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible.

So, early in her global warming campaign – and at her personal instigation – the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1).”

So, on face value, my explanation disagrees with the above account from Lord Monckton. However, in reality the two accounts agree.

My account explains the personal political motivation that Mrs Thatcher had to present ‘global warming’ as a potential problem. It explains the reason for the statements she made that are quoted above by persons who dispute the account from Lord Monckton, and it explains why she founded the Hadley Centre. Simply, she was seeking to establish a ‘scientific’ issue as a major international issue because her science degree would then provide her with credibility as a leader on the international political stage.

There are many potential problems at all times. Some become real and others don’t. ‘Global warming’ was never likely to become a serious scientific problem. As Lord Monckton says in his above article:

“In due course, the scientific results began to arrive. It became as clear to Margaret Thatcher as it has to me that our original concern was no longer necessary. The warming effect of CO2 is simply too small to make much difference and, in any event, it is orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to any consequences of “global warming” than to wreck the economies of the West by trying to demonize CO2 and cut our emissions.”

The issue had served its political purpose, and the “scientific results” indicated it was not a real scientific problem. So, Mrs Thatcher dropped it (as Lord Monckton says in his above article).

Nobody – not Mrs Thatcher and not anybody else – could have foreseen that the political issue of global warming would take on a life of its own. As my article says of the origins of ‘global warming’ in the UK;

“The system amplifier is the politicians’ support of global warming. The issue is assisted by gaining political approval each time it passes around a loop shown in Figure 2”

It could have been expected that the political issue of ‘global warming’ would fade away when the political pressure ended in the UK. But by then the issue had become an international issue of such power that it continued. Politicians often make use of issues that are available, and – as my article explains – successive UK governments adopted ‘global warming’ for their own purposes.

“milanovic says:
[…]
Yes, it lagged during the ice-ages, I know, but this does not mean that it should lag now. Which part of positive feedback don’t you understand?”

What evidence do you have for the positive feedbacks posited by the IPCC? Do GCM’s assuming these feedbacks model cloud cover correctly, or do they model troposphaeric temperatures correctly? And if they do, do they fail to model it correctly when we remove the assumption of these feedbacks?

“Should I try to explain this? At the end of an ice age temperature start increasing. This causes CO2 release from the oceans, which starts a positive feedback that enhances temperature increase. So back then, temperature increase was first, CO2 increase enhanced temperature increase. Nowadays, CO2 increases by human emissions, which could again start such a positive feedback. That temperature was first during the ice ages doesn’t imply that the other way around is not possible. This has nothing to do with a “magical invisible future forcing”, which is just rediculous.

So instead of calling All Gore and his science advisors liars, it would be advisable to first inform yourself.”

You had better inform yourself first. CO2 doesn’t start INCREASING until about 800 years AFTER it starts warming up coming out of an ice age, by which time the vast majority of the warming HAS BEEN COMPLETED ALREADY. It is truly sad when the badly misinformed tell other’s they need to “first inform themselves”.

CO2 does NOT cause a positive feedback. If it did, we would never have ice ages in the first place, the planet would currently be an oven with a CO2 concentration of at least 5% rather than 0.04%.

Apparently you have never read any of the sCRU-TAPE letters by Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, etc. They don’t talk like scientists at all. They ROUTINELY insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with them, and even appear happy when a prominent skeptical scientist DIES.

Their behavior is FAR MORE APPALING then anything Christopher Monkton has ever said. Sorry.

You are a dandy troll, and sure, Monkton should probably be a tad more polite, even though his foes are among the most unprofessional and impolite people claiming to be scientists on the face of the planet. Whatever.

However, the fact remains that none of the things Abraham said are actually factually correct. He is using information for every single point that he makes which has since been refuted.

milanovic says:
June 17, 2010 at 6:53 am
@RockyRoad “Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes”

I know, but not in the last century, does it?

“And to prove the point, the decrease in CO2 lagged a drop in temperature while going into a glacial epoch AND CO2 lagged a temperature increase while going into an interglacial.”

Yes, it lagged during the ice-ages, I know, but this does not mean that it should lag now. Which part of positive feedback don’t you understand?
——————Reply:
So is CO2 your favorite GHG? Let’s compare it to water:

H2O is a much better GHG than CO2 and occurs at around 10,000 ppm, whereas the latter is only ~390 ppm while being a much weaker spectral absorber.

H2O is a solid, liquid, and gas, whereas CO2 is only a gas; never a solid and never a liquid (ambient conditions).

H2O as a solid floats on water; as a solid or liquit it falls from the sky, suspends in the air and shades the earth. It’s formation as a precipitate is also influenced by cosmic rays from distant parts of the galaxy; but CO2 does none of these.

H2O collects the acids and dust from the air, along with a significant amount of CO2. Obviously CO2 is subservient to H2O.

H2O fuels storms, splits rocks, moves mountains, deposits sediments, and destroys continents. It infiltrates mid-oceanic ridge systems, greases subduction zones, and appears as the major gas component in island-arc volcanoes. I even hear it has something to do with climate, but is considered “difficult” so most scientists ignore it.

Still, what a marvelous compound H2O is! Don’t get me wrong–I like CO2, for without it my garden wouldn’t grow and soda drinks would be flat, but H2O completely dwarfs it.

Water will even float your boat and wash your body, but CO2 fails in those and so many other ways.

So keep on your CO2 kick if you wish–it is easy to model, scapegoat, control and tax. Water, on the other hand, is none of those. However, I much prefer water, especially as the dominant GHG.

I’ll take it that you agree that increasing GHGs ( methane or H20 or C02 or you name it) will increase the temperature of the planet. Increasing them will not cool the planet. Increasing them will not result in exactly the same temperature. Increasing them will warm the planet. You might argue that the amount is small. You might argue that it is moderate. You might argue that it will be dramatic. But, you wouldn’t argue that the planet would cool. Or rather, there is no physics based theory that would PREDICT cooling and provide a mechanism that explained why increasing GHGs would cool the planet.

I read the CRU emails. The difference is Jones, et al. were writing emails they thought would remain private, not publicly rebutting a critic. And, though you attempt to excuse Monckton’s behavior by claiming his foes are unprofessional and impolite, Abraham’s critique was none of those things.

Also, I never take anonymous internet commentators at their word (does anyone?), so if you aim to convince me that Abraham has used some refuted sources I need more information than just your word.

“”” RockyRoad says:
June 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm
milanovic says:
June 17, 2010 at 6:53 am
@RockyRoad “Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes”

I know, but not in the last century, does it? “””

So what am I missing ? why would I be looking in the last century for something that predates today’s rising CO2 levels by 800 years. Wouldn’t it make more sense to be looking say 800 years ago, as in around 1200 AD; you know that period where the Mediaeval Warming took place; that 800 year delay.

Why are people looking for day to day correlations between CO2 and Temperatures; when the only data we have that seems to show such correleations is the ice core data from 600,000 years ago that clearly demonstrates about an 800 year lag between CO2 changes; and the 800 year earlier Temperature changes it causes.

And as for CO2 and other GHG causing warming; and NOT causing cooling, and not causing nothing; well that may indeed be true; but then no other GHG is like water vapor; in that we also get H2O in the form of clouds, both solid and liquid (waterwise).

And there is nothing in the CO2 literature to describer what clouds of CO2 would do; since we don’t get CO2 clouds; only H2O clouds; and then ALL bets are off as to what GHGs do;because the clouds simply negate anything that the GHGs do; including the H2O GHG itself.

Steven Mosher says: June 17, 2010 at 12:23 pm
“I’ll take it that you agree that increasing GHGs ( methane or H20 or C02 or you name it) will increase the temperature of the planet”

If it is cooling, point to Mars, so high a concentration of CO2 that it has all condensed and has frozen to the poles causing a runaway ice house affect. Too much CO2 is what froze Mars.

If it is warming, point to Venus, so high a concentration of CO2 that it all remained in the atmosphere and has caused a run away greenhouse affect. Too much CO2 is what baked Venus.

The fact that the two are at two different distances from the Sun is to be ignored, as it the original planets composition and density, as is the relative atmosphere holding potential of the planets gravity, etc.

I see a lot of people putting faith in paleo data and statements about MWP that are a lot less certain than the basic physics engineers use in their everyday job to calculate the effect that a wide variety of molecules ( see hitran) have on the propagation of radiation ( at all wavelengths) through the atmosphere. If we assumed that C02, for example, had no effect none of our designs would have worked as expected. But since C02 and other gases operate just as the RTE predict they will, our designs do work and pilots are alive today as a result. And bad guys are dead. Now, perhaps the day will come and somebody will offer up a physics of radiative transfer that predicts something different than we observe. And then we will puzzle over why RTE gave us an answer that worked. But, if your job today entails calculating how the atmosphere interacts with all manner of radiation, then you use RTE’s and you kinda smile at the folks who are looking at ice cores and wonder why they would rely on data that is less certain to reject a theory that works everyday.

Eisenhower warned of the rise of the Military Industrial Complex. Today we face the Political Scientific Complex, and we’re not doing very well. Beware the Ides of September!

In the same speech Eisenhower warned:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

I’ll take it that you agree that increasing GHGs ( methane or H20 or C02 or you name it) will increase the temperature of the planet. Increasing them will not cool the planet. Increasing them will not result in exactly the same temperature. Increasing them will warm the planet. You might argue that the amount is small. You might argue that it is moderate. You might argue that it will be dramatic. But, you wouldn’t argue that the planet would cool. Or rather, there is no physics based theory that would PREDICT cooling and provide a mechanism that explained why increasing GHGs would cool the planet.

Steve, I’m not intending in any way to be confrontational, but I am genuinely at a loss in trying to understand why you seem to have fallen for the alarmist tactic of focussing on minor trace gases to the exclusion of the elephants wandering about crapping on the carpet.

Who give a monkey’s nut what co2 and methane are up to when good old H2o is far more prevalent and far more effective at both heating and cooling the atmosphere and surface? The alarmist claim that water only acts as a feedback while co2 is a forcing is the biggest red herring out there. Sun and clouds mate, and atmospheric angular momentum.

Climatology is nothing but a charlatan science with Leftist-libs doing the jiggery-pokery in your face while picking your pockets. CRUgate insider Mike Hulme should know better than anyone: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen [UN-approved] experts…” The Democrat party sides with the secular, socialist, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Judeo/Christian, corrupt and colluding AGW fearmongers.

There’s nothing new about the tactics of the Democrat party only this time, the Leftist-libs are taking science down too… and California, and the country, Greece, and driving the stake a little deeper everyday into the soul of dead and dying old Europe. AGW is a new age apocalyptic conversion religion comprised mostly of Westerners who have faith in their belief that there is no other absolute power but the One: the Monophysical Element, CO2. However, the mystical properties that these new age Warmanists ascribe to their all-powerful One are not actually observed in nature and that is why you must take everything they believe on faith; and, making faith-based decisions concerning down-to-earth matters–like the business of living in a physical world–is insanity and anyone with a brain is rightly skeptical. “Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer.” (Santayana)

The sun-denying AGW global warming alarmists still believe in an ‘Earth-centered universe.’ It was proven long ago that MBH98 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph) was a scientific fraud. Everyone knows Al Gore is the proverbial king with no clothes. Evanescent since the 70s, there has been no significant global warming at all since 1998 and there has been global cooling since 2002. Fears of runaway global warming is nothing more than a sick society suffering from Hot World Syndrome–a mass mania. The Earth does not actually function like a greenhouse: that’s an analogy for dummies and is way passé.

After the hoax–now that the AGW bubble has burst and the doomsday fear tactics of the Leftist-libs only work on children in the public school-dropout factories–the pertinent questions now are simple:

* Why did Western academics support lies to the detriment America, science and the objective search for truth?

* On what side of truth versus lies and anti-Americanism has the Democrat party sided with?

* Why does secular, socialist academia and the Democrat party hate America?

Several people have made comments suggesting that a full refutation of Abraham’s attempt to rebut a talk by me about the climate would be desirable.

I have written to Abraham at length, asking him many questions about his talk. He has not yet acknowledged my letter, still less replied substantively. But at least I have given him an opportunity to reply before I publish – an opportunity which, contrary to academic good practice and courtesy, he had not extended to me before publishing his talk.

On 10 July my letter to Abraham, and a subsequent letter from me to the president of his university raising some concerns about his talk, will be published, together with any replies that may have been received by then.

These two letters will provide all the detail necessary to establish that Abraham’s talk fell a long way short of being scientifically reliable or academically acceptable.

In one respect, I did not behave as I should have done. In my anger at the many distortions of my talk that Abraham had relayed to third parties so that he could obtain and publish withering comments from them not on what I had said but what he wished I had said, I issued an early statement that, while indicating that much of Abraham’s talk was defective, also resorted to some ad-hominem remarks. I have apologized to Abraham for those remarks. However, he has not yet apologized to me for the numerous ad-hominem comments that he directed at me throughout his talk.

Bottom line: do not rely upon Abraham’s serially unreliable talk until you have seen the two letters from me that I have mentioned. – Monckton of Brenchley

I’m surprised Lord Monckton can hold his temper as well as he has. If he were a natural born U.S. citizen I would suggest that in order to drive the moonbats right up the wall, he should run for President on a ticket with Sarah Palin.☺

And for the moonbats here who attack the man rather than his ideas: click

Richard says:
June 17, 2010 at 11:14 am
“Many positive feedback loops exist in the system and the major ones are shown in Figure 2. The system amplifier is the politicians’ support of global warming. The issue is assisted by gaining political approval each time it passes around a loop shown in Figure 2.”

Just love that idea of politics being possibly the only positive feedback in AGW, and that climate model doesn’t even need Christopher Monckton’s Osborne computer to run on. I ‘m sure he could soon come up with a credible sensitivity factor for that political feedback effect ‘though, which after all seems a lot more tangible than AGW itself.

I have seen where British Prime Ministers have had someone on their staff called a “science advisor” and wonder if Lord Moncton had formally held that title under the Thatcher administration? I can find no reference confirming that position under Margaret Thatcher.

Mr Mosher
What you are talking about is theory and that is not necessarily what happens in the real world. You assume theory as fact when it’s a hypothesis that isn’t confirmed by reality. The real physics is that there is a finite limit to how much warming increasing CO2 can cause and that negative feedbacks are far more likely than positive feedbacks. Assuming that the small warming over the last 150 years is real (arguable) and caused only by CO2 then the actual forcing of CO2 is far less than the hypothesis would show. I believe that historically the concept of 1-2 degrees NH warming should be welcomed.

Richard S Courtney’s comment above should be compulsory reading for all school children who are having Climate Change information forced upon them,
as the public are being conditioned to see the sceptics as right wing capitalists.

It seems from the information above that the AGW issue was started by the UK Thatcher Government. ! I suspect that the USA politicans in power at that time saw this as an opportunity to get public approval for increased use of nuclear power generation, so NASA went along with the views coming from the CRU.
The ECU and the UN also saw opportunities for other political agendas.

I say that because Dr. James Hansen of NASA-GISS has been so outspoken not only on AGW, but also on the need to adopt nuclear power generation as the best means of supplying future world energy needs given the increasing population that strains the world capacity to cope with them. Is any religious authority prepared to suggest the world will be straining the enviromental capacity with the present views.?
The UK’s Church of England seems to have tried to discuss the issue at least.

I look forward to reading your letters and it’s good to hear that you have apologized for your insults. I think we can all agree that, ultimately, it’s the science that matters, not ad-hominem attacks and rhetoric.

I’m aware that people are claiming Abraham made ad hominem attacks on Monckton, but I’ve yet to see any examples. I didn’t notice any when I listened to Abraham’s presentation, but maybe I missed them.

Re polar bears: The population issue has been thoroughly thrashed over in prior threads, and lots of links and quotes were provided that would have greatly advanced the rehash here. It’s a great pity that “polar bears” aren’t on the official “category” list and/or that there isn’t some official or semi-official index to the site that could be accessed when rehashes occur.

toby says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:09 am

Someone mentioned Al Gore above, and of course Mr Gore has also been accused of errors and misrepresentations. But al least Gore seems to have based his talks on the best of the science available to him, actually talked to scientists and used a science advisor.

I’m sure that Monckton has also “actually talked to scientists.”
As for the “best of the science,” that is a beaut of a question-begger (in the true sense of the term).
“Science advisor”? Sure, Gore needs a “keeper,” but that’s nothing to brag about.

Cal Barndorfer says:
June 17, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I’m aware that people are claiming Abraham made ad hominem attacks on Monckton, but I’ve yet to see any examples. I didn’t notice any when I listened to Abraham’s presentation, but maybe I missed them.
Feel free to provide some actual examples.

===================================

You feel free to do the same, Cal.

I’ve got an even better idea: A debate between the two! Somebody needs to arrange that and then let the truth win out.

A debate. A live debate. I am sure both parties would agree to it, no?

The issue had served its political purpose, and the “scientific results” indicated it was not a real scientific problem. So, Mrs Thatcher dropped it (as Lord Monckton says in his above article).

Which scientific results? When? Why was the mad cow still crapping on about it at the World Climate Convention in the 90’s?

Sorry, it doesn’t wash. What you and Christopher Monckton have been saying here, is that Thatcher started a worldwide doomsday scare for personal aggrandisement. And kept it going throughout her (overly long) term in office despite knowing at an early stage that the science indicated there was nothng to worry about.

And yet most of the climate-sceptical commenters here are willing to overlook that because the woman who wrecked Britain running it on the principles of her dads street corner grocery in Grantham achieved cult status in America as the woman who helped second rate film actor Ronnie Ray-Gun topple the Soviet Union. Despite overtures from Mikhail Gorbachev which would have averted the appalling loss of life in the ensuing turmoil if they’d had the statesmanship to listen and act lke statesmen?

Steven Mosher said : June 17, 2010 at 12:23 pm
.
quote I’ll take it that you agree that increasing GHGs ( methane or H20 or C02 or you name it) will increase the temperature of the planet. Increasing them will not cool the planet. Increasing them will not result in exactly the same temperature. unquote
.
On that last point I’m not sure. It may well be that, if the sea/atmosphere/land system is actually homeostatic, that adding energy (or, more accurately preventing energy from leaving the system) may not warm it. If you would like an analogy then think of it like a man under a duvet with just his leg sticking out. Double the tog rating of the duvet and he will cool himself via the leg until his cooling system is overwhelmed and he begins to run a fever.
.
My idea about our influence on the climate is that we could be, so to speak, putting a stocking on the leg.
.
quote Increasing them will warm the planet. You might argue that the amount is small. You might argue that it is moderate. You might argue that it will be dramatic. But, you wouldn’t argue that the planet would cool. Or rather, there is no physics based theory that would PREDICT cooling and provide a mechanism that explained why increasing GHGs would cool the planet.unquote
.
Interesting. Essenhigh predicted that an open Arctic Ocean would cause a great increase in snowfall over the land. Higher albedo, marked cooling, at least until the snow melts. Warming in that case could lead to cooling, at least to this limited extent. Whether it would runaway to a colder attractor is another matter and I do not know the answer to that.
.
However, let me ask the question you are trying to put. Do I deny the physics of GHG warming?
No.
And now a question for me. Do I speculate about whether GHG warming is less important compared to other alterations we are making to the linked system which controls the overall temperature of the Earth?
Yes.
.
No physics was harmed in the making of this post.
.
JF
My guess at climate sensitivity, as formulated …err… formally, is about .6 deg C, but I see no way to confirm that without waiting, as the other things we are doing make it difficult to tease out the different effects. Incidentally, if BP wants to win from the Gulf situation it should crash -fund the VOCALS team to study the atmosphere above the Gulf. If the Kriegesmarine Effect is real they will come out smelling of roses. If not, then it was worth a try. They won’t notice a couple of million. Bags I go as an observer — I’ll carry the bags. Sweep up. Cook….

“And yet most of the climate-sceptical commenters here are willing to overlook that because the woman who wrecked Britain…”

Come off it tallbloke. I can only assume that you are much younger than I am if you don’t remember the complete and utter mess that Thatcher inherited from Labour (not helped by Ted Heath) who have a knack of ruining economies they are left in charge of for more than 2 years. We had rampant inflation, were spending money we didn’t have, bankrupt and inefficient industries, hide bound ways of working and over mighty unions. If you recall, this all led to a stagnant or declining economy and serious loss of self esteem as a country as we feared we were being left behind and marginalised.

This isn’t the proper place for a political discussion but Thatcher brought us back from the brink, just as the current Tory/Lib administration will have to do.

“Several people have made comments suggesting that a full refutation of Abraham’s attempt to rebut a talk by me about the climate would be desirable.”

Abrahams rebuttal did in my view have a number of errors, but as it is being cited so widely it would be good to see a proper analysis of what he said. I listened to his talk and whilst I found it dull and a little confusing (I think you need to be there and in front of the slides as he explains it) I found him courteous and reasonable in his manner.

It didn’t help your case (nor ours) in the way you subsequently attacked him and it is good to hear that you have apologised-unfortunately that has not been carried as widely as your original comments.

As I have said before earlier in this thread I wish that Big wind would sponsor me to carry out a slide by slide critique of Abrahams work as a number of flaws were evident. Hopefully you will be able to put forward some substantive rebuttals yourself, so I for one wait for the publication of your detailed responses with great interest.

Well, where to start,
@Smokey Thanks for the article, what you fail to mention is that the writer states
“Superficially, this observation would seem to imply that pCO2 does not exert dominant control on Earth’s climate at time scales greater than about 10 My. A wealth of evidence, however, suggests that pCO2 exerts at least some control [see Crowley and Berner (30) for a recent review]. Fig. 4 cannot by itself refute this
assumption.

I’ll explain: At shorter time-scales (<10M) CO2 does partly control climate (not on its own of course) and on longer time-scales this article cannot disprove it (open question maybe)

As about all the comments of H2O: of course H2O is an important greenhouse-gas and given the concentrations, stronger than CO2. But H2O is in equilibrium with temperature and therefore very quickly (much more quickly than Co2) follows temperature. Again, a positive feedback.

What I find disappointing in this discussion that I get to answer loads of questions and criticism, but when I ask a single question back, I only get more questions, so I would still like an answer

Smokey: you didn't answer my question why you showed a graph of CO2 difference and temperature to claim there is correlation. You do realize that
this doesn't make any sense, because linear trends are removed and in this way you get correlations between linear increasing and stationary data sets.

And for thos who claim that in current times CO2 lags temperature, please answer my earlier questions:
how do you explain that with:
1) The precise correlation between CO2 emmissions and CO2 increase
2) the evidence from CO2 isotopes?

This isn’t the proper place for a political discussion but Thatcher brought us back from the brink

By pushing quite a few million people over it. Are you from the south of England Tony?

Anyway, as you say, this isn’t the place for a political discussion, so let’s concentrate on the climate scare she started, both as a booster to her international status as a leader with a science degree, and as a handy stick to beat the mining union with, and that she continued to run with for years after the facts were in.

Findings released during the annual Goldschmidt Conference at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville

KNOXVILLE — By examining 800,000-year-old polar ice, scientists increasingly are learning how the climate has changed since the last ice melt and that carbon dioxide has become more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere.

For two decades, French scientist Jérôme Chappellaz has been examining ice cores collected from deep inside the polar ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. His studies on the interconnecting air spaces of old snow — or firn air — in the ice cores show that the roughly 40 percent increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Earth’s last deglaciation can be attributed in large part to changes in the circulation and biological activity of the oceanic waters surrounding Antarctica.

Chappellaz presented his findings today in Knoxville, Tenn. during the Goldschmidt Conference, an international gathering of several thousand geochemists who converge annually to share their research on Earth, energy and the environment. The event, hosted by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is taking place June 13-18.

By measuring the carbon isotopes in the firn air, scientists can pinpoint the source of atmospheric carbon during the millennia. Because living organisms at the surface of the oceans tend to take up the lighter of the carbon isotopes, 13C, and this isotope is then released when the organisms decay, scientists know the higher concentration of 13C is originating from the oceans.

Normally, the organisms die, sink to the ocean depths, and decompose, releasing carbon that remains stored in the cold, deep waters for centuries. But a growing concentration of the isotope 13C in the air during the last deglaciation indicates that this “old” carbon from decomposition was released from the southern polar waters, where the Antarctic Circumpolar Current transports more water than any other current in the world. Here, oceanic circulation is increasing in intensity and the deep water is releasing carbon dioxide at the surface.

For two decades, Chappellaz has examined polar ice cores to decipher how the primary greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — have changed in concentrations and ratios since ancient times and what has caused those changes. He notably showed for the first time the tight link existing between atmospheric methane and global climate at glacial-interglacial time scales. Chappellaz is research director at the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de Environnement in Grenoble, France.

###
The Goldschmidt Conference is named for Victor Goldschmidt (1888-1947), the Swiss-Norwegian scientist who is considered the father of geochemistry. This year’s conference is sponsored by a number of international geochemical societies.

That’s good to hear. I remain amazed at the people who spout the scientific method yet dont use it. So It’s good to hear that no physics was harmed in your post. personally, I’ve always been intriqued by your theory about the ocean surface. would be nice to have data to back it up.

Most of the people who try to deny the effects of GHGs dont realize that they do not have to deny that tested physics. They can, like lindzen, christy,monkton,and spenser actually believe that C02 will warm the planet ( what first order estimates show), and remain skeptical about large impacts. The persistent refusal to even understand the first order physics, while waving their arms about unproven or even unformulated physics, is puzzling. I have many conversations where I explain that they do not have to put themselves in the situation of looking silly to engineers who use this physics, but they persist. It’s most fascinating.

Mr Mosher
“What you are talking about is theory and that is not necessarily what happens in the real world. You assume theory as fact when it’s a hypothesis that isn’t confirmed by reality. The real physics is that there is a finite limit to how much warming increasing CO2 can cause and that negative feedbacks are far more likely than positive feedbacks. ”

Actually I am talking about the physics that describes how radiation propagates. Now this physics describes how ALL radiation propagates, be it Xband or visible light or longwave. This physics describes how various molecules in the atmopshere react to radiation, absorbing, reflecting, scattering.. When we design a secure communications piece of equipment, for example, we need to know how that radiation will travel ( or not) through the amosphere. When we design a cell phone tower, or radar or satillite platform, or Nightvision goggles or Ir sensors or wifi or wimax. the propagation of radition through the atmosphere is an important design constraint. If we disreguarded this physics or were skeptical about it or if it was wrong, then the things you use everyday would not work.

Second: the ” real physics” is that there is a limit to the effect of C02. yes I know.
That’s in the equations of RTE. Your point about feedbacks? Sorry, feedbacks are not a part of RTE. feedbacks are not derived physics. They can be estimated if you believe in climate models or estimated from observation, but they are not derived.
frankly I’m agnostic about feedbacks

“Assuming that the small warming over the last 150 years is real (arguable) and caused only by CO2 then the actual forcing of CO2 is far less than the hypothesis would show. I believe that historically the concept of 1-2 degrees NH warming should be welcomed.”

Is it colder now than in 1850? I havent seen any evidence that it is. none. zip.

Monckton is a right wing fantasist. Margaret Thatcher was a relatively rare creature in nature, the female psychopath, and there are millions of people waiting to dance on her grave.

She is also absolutely reponsible for the politicisation of the global warming scam.
——————————————————————————–

Everything I remember about it sis consistent with this – and I remember the coal union weekly visits to the Kremlin. I don’t forget a lot. I won’t forget this misrepresentation posted by Mr. Monckton.

We were in a mess. Very Harsh remedies were applied, but one was needed before the patient expired.

No but I was donating some of my wage to the miners on a weekly basis during the strike. (This should give you some idea of how much younger than you I am).

Very harsh remedies were applied, but not to the fat cats or self-servatives.

The UK deep mining industry was the safest, best regulated mining operation in the world. It had a much better safety record than the building trade for example. It didn’t create anything like the airbourne pollution open cast mines create.
Was it the safest because the management was enlightened and wanted to spend extra cash to make sutre no-one got hurt?
No, it was the safest becase the miners had a strong union which forced the management to look after the health and safety of the miners. Oil rig workers take note.

Thatcher wanted to destroy all unions on ideological principle, and took a swipe at the miners because they were the strongest union.
Dogma, spite and vindictiveness. And we’ll soon be paying the price in brown outs and blackouts.

quote I’ve always been intrigued by your theory about the ocean surface. would be nice to have data to back it up. unquote

I don’t have time to write the paper: here are some notes. I can do isotopes if needed, but that really is hand-waving.

The impact of organic material on cloud and fog processes W D Garrett 1978 (photographic investigation of the projection of droplets by bubbles bursting at a water surface.(4b shows droplets joining back up.))

“Hygroscopic growth of particles generated from artificial
seawater occurred at lower relative humidities than that of
NaCl, but similar growth to the pure salt was obtained above
75% RH. No observable differences were found between the
behaviour of the aerosol generated from artificial seawater
by the different techniques. Hygroscopic growth was suppressed
with respect to the organics-free artificial seawater
experiments when the aerosol was generated from filtered
seawater enriched with biogenic surfactants, although the extent
of this reduction was dependent on the aerosol generation
technique applied.”

I’d love to see a popular account of this work and its implications in WUWT. I’ve puzzled over it a few times: does it say that aerosols generated from clean seawater (organics free) are less reluctant to attract water vapour and form droplets? If so, then here is the AGW smoking gun. And if so, how come these people are not being funded until their pockets groan with gold? Maybe I’ve just misread their conclusions.

I wish you luck with
J. Vanhanen, A.-P. Hyvärinen, T. Anttila, Y. Viisanen, and H. Lihavainen,
who have lots of papers about droplets.

highlights the role of surfactants in droplet formation and behaviour — polluted droplets join together more easily and turn into rain. Which, of course, means the clouds fall out of the sky. Fewer clouds, more sun. Tide, I might add, the first of the synthetic surfactants which are resistant to biological breakdown, appeared during WWII.

In one of the CRU emails, Tom Wigley asks about the 1940s temperature blip, while discussing ways of making it go away. ‘It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”‘. No, Professor, you don’t explain data by adjusting it. That is poor science. You explain it by thinking about it. And, incidentally, if Folland and Parker had been a little more thoughtful they would never have gone for their bucket correction to smooth away the blip — there”s a wind ‘blip’ to match the temperature excursion and even the most vigorous hand-waving won’t explain that by changing a bucket.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/oilslick.html
shows how much a little oil spreads and what it does to ocean albedo, as do the MODIS pictures of the current brouhaha in the Gulf. I, with a prejudiced eye, can see the slick eating low-level clouds just downwind from it, but my eye is prejudiced. I’d like to see some decent image analysis done on the low level cloud formations during the crisis and, of course, aerosol collection.

“Travel brought out the scientist in Franklin. On transatlantic voyages, he pondered the action of the Gulf Stream and proposed the idea of watertight compartments for ships. Overland, he investigated the way in which oil could be used to calm water surfaces. He first performed this experiment on Clapham Pond in the summer of 1771, and subsequently carried with him a cane containing a small oil holder to repeat his “conjuring trick” on his travels. In the idyllic setting of Derwentwater in the Lake District, the experiment was performed in 1772 by the memorable gathering of Benjamin Franklin, John Pringle and the chemist William Brownrigg.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Royal Society, which has been shamefully bad in its conduct wrt this subject, has had the clue staring it in the face?

I must go — grass-cutting and weed spraying call. One cannot spend all one’s time saving the planet.

I’m all for using coal for our energy needs (with suitable modern emissions safeguards)

I’m at a bit of a loss as to how the UK is going to meet the needs of a major industrial economy unless we use grown up sources of power-coal, nuclear, gas or oil.

I’m more comfortable with using resources under our control rather than someone else’s so coal moves up the pecking order.

Unfortunately the Governments non energy policy over the last dozen years is likely to result in just the scenario you paint. Incidentally I’m all for renewables, just realistic as to the real world input they can make within our lifetime.

“What you and Christopher Monckton have been saying here, is that Thatcher started a worldwide doomsday scare for personal aggrandisement. And kept it going throughout her (overly long) term in office despite knowing at an early stage that the science indicated there was nothng to worry about.”

No! That is NOT what I have said at any time!
Please read my article that I referenced in my comment. To save you looking that up, I copy the URL again here. It ishttp://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Your dislike of Mrs Thatcher is not a reason to distort history. I, too, despise her, and with personal reason. I was employed by British Coal (aka the National Coal Board) at the Coal Research Establishment (CRE) where I was the Senior Material Scientist. Her destruction of the coal industry closed CRE and curtailed my career after nearly three decades of employment.

But the facts are the facts. The terrible damage done to our country by Mrs Thatcher is a matter of history, but resentment of that damage is not a justifiable reason to distort the facts.

But the facts are the facts. The terrible damage done to our country by Mrs Thatcher is a matter of history, but resentment of that damage is not a justifiable reason to distort the facts.

I didn’t mean to upset you or distiort anything. I was pointing out that between You, Christoper and me, there are some dates that need pinpointing:

When did she start the scare? – Your history
When did the facts show it wasn’t a big concern? – Christopher’s assertion
Why was she still crapping on about it at the 1991 International Climate Conference? – My observation

Mr Mosher, one piece of evidence please to give evidence to catstrophic AGW.
I know that you can’t give that despite the science being settled and the situation actually being far worse than anybody could imagine. How about anything that can show that any environmental degredation is caused by AGW.

I’ve got an even better idea: A debate between the two! Somebody needs to arrange that and then let the truth win out.

A debate. A live debate. I am sure both parties would agree to it, no?

===================================

What am I meant to find examples of? I’m not the one who claimed Abraham was making ad hominem attacks…

And a debate seems a ridiculous forum to decide whether or not Abraham used ad hominem attacks in his presentation when one can just look at the presentation first hand. I’ve already done this and found no examples of Abraham exhibiting this behavior. If you’ve listened to his presentation and found otherwise, please share.

Steven Mosher says:
June 18, 2010 at 1:13 am
(…)
Is it colder now than in 1850? I havent seen any evidence that it is. none. zip.
————-Reply:
Maybe the question should be whether it is any warmer than it was back in 1850. That’s what I’m really interested in, because I went out this morning and inspected the 20 tomato plants I’ve got in my garden, and they were all covered in frost. FROST! on the 18th of June. I go to http://www.weather.com and sure enough, it reported 31F. But since there was even frost on the roof of my house, I’m betting it was considerably colder than that (and no, I didn’t cover them because our illustrious weather service last night predicted a low of 4 degrees above freezing, so silly me for having believed them).

So I consider all this ballyhoo about global warming and I figure they’re right–the heavy snowfalls last winter and the winter before were, according to the GW “experts”, all due to “global warming”. And I suppose this summer frost (we’re only 3 days from the longest day of the year) is due to global warming, too. (Ok, ok… technically we’re not into “summer” yet, so I’m deflecting that criticism here.)

Hey, it all makes complete and total sense. Now if they’d just change Webster’s definition of “warm”, “cold”, terms like that. Problem is, do I reinvest $40 to replace the plants or just go hungry? If it would warm up some…. excuse me… if it would quit getting so cold… excuse me… if it would stop killing my tomatoes and I had faith the summer would be warm… excuse me… would allow me to get red ones instead of green ones, I’d consider it.

To those who have taken part in the “does CO2 cool” debate, I’d like to ask a question.

How does the atmosphere lose it’s energy (heat) out to space?

I was under the impression that it was via radiative transfer by molecules capable of RT, i.e. GHG’s. If that is true, then GHG’s DO help cool the atmosphere. This does not contravene physics.

Assuming a build up of CO2 to, say over 5000ppm, at the lower atmosphere it would have already done all the warming it can long before reaching 5000ppm.
However higher in the atmosphere, these additional molecules could/may act like extra lanes of a highway, allowing more warmth/energy to be radiated to space. i.e. cooling.
Combined with other factors, this cooling may aid in the onset of ice ages.

From the many paleo graphs I have seen, warm periods are followed by quite drastic falls in temperatures leading to ice ages.

“Why was she still crapping on about it at the 1991 International Climate Conference? – My observation”

My answer:
Having started the scare and used it for her personal political interests she could not be seen to abandon the issue without losing face. So she had to be “crapping on about it at the 1991 International Climate Conference” because otherwise the credibility she had obtained would have been lost. Refusal to attend or to support the Conference would have been personally damaging to her. However, please note the caveats she included in her address to that and to the earlier 1990 Conference some of which xe136 posted above at June 16, 2010 at 11:12 pm. I think one of his/her quotations is telling in terms of the timings that interest you. He/she quotes her saying:

“Of course, much more research is needed. We don’t yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. The IPCC report is very careful on this point. For instance, the total amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere each year from natural sources is some 600 billion tonnes, while the figure resulting from human activities is only 26 billion tonnes. In relative terms that is not very significant. Equally we know that the increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere date from the start of the industrial revolution. And we know that those concentrations will continue to rise if we fail to act.

Nor do we know with any precision the extent of the likely warming in the next century, nor what the regional effects will be, and we can’t be sure of the role of the clouds. “

Now, that is a very, very significant retreat from her promotion of global warming during the previous decade.

Monckton wrote Abraham outlining his concerns. The fact that Abraham refused to respond tells us all we need to know about his lack of character.

Abraham is typical of the alarmist contingent’s lack of class in general.

==============================

Other than Monckton’s word, where is your evidence that a letter has been sent and that Abraham has refused to comment. When was it sent? How much time does Abraham have to respond? What did it say? Was it as insulting as Monckton’s public response to Abraham’s presentation?

This attempt to injure Abraham’s character is pathetic. So far you’ve produced no evidence for any of your claims.

Do you have a moral blind spot? You impugn Monckton’s character while whining about your boy’s lack of character; psychological projection there. Even the far-Left NY Times prints retractions when it gets its facts wrong.

Abraham did a hit ‘n’ run drive-by attack, published on the internet, and now he is hiding out with his tail between his legs, cowering in his ivory tower rather than man up and defend his questionable assertions. Once again I double dog dare Abraham to issue a debate challenge to Lord Monckton.

For someone as meticulous to detail as Christopher Monckton to write both the university and Abraham, and as you imply, to lie about one of those communications, shows that you believe only what suits you. You bring to mind last election’s PDS.

I have no need to produce ‘evidence’ to please you. I’ve watched Abraham’s one-sided polemic. If I were Monckton I would demand that Abraham explain himself. Instead, Abraham hides out, just like all the other purveyors of climate alarmism.

Excuse me, but isn’t the reason we won’t have sufficient energy generating capacity because our political leaders have decided to shun fossil fuels because of global warming hysteria? And isn’t it also the case that it was cheaper to import coal from Russia than mine our own so if we wanted to build coal fired power stations we could have, whether or not we mined our own coal?

Do you have a moral blind spot? You impugn Monckton’s character while whining about your boy’s lack of character; psychological projection there. Even the far-Left NY Times prints retractions when it gets its facts wrong.

Abraham did a hit ‘n’ run drive-by attack, published on the internet, and now he is hiding out with his tail between his legs, cowering in his ivory tower rather than man up and defend his questionable assertions. Once again I double dog dare Abraham to issue a debate challenge to Lord Monckton.

For someone as meticulous to detail as Christopher Monckton to write both the university and Abraham, and as you imply, to lie about one of those communications, shows that you believe only what suits you. You bring to mind last election’s PDS.

I have no need to produce ‘evidence’ to please you. I’ve watched Abraham’s one-sided polemic. If I were Monckton I would demand that Abraham explain himself. Instead, Abraham hides out, just like all the other purveyors of climate alarmism.

====================================

So in summary:

1) You have no evidence of Abraham using ad-hominem attacks on Monckton

2) You have no proof that Monckton wrote a letter to Abraham, nor any information on what it said, nor when it was sent, nor whether it is actually being ignored by Abraham or whether he’s currently crafting a response.

Noted.

And debates are pointless. This is about science, not who is the better orator.

Monckton wrote Abraham outlining his concerns. The fact that Abraham refused to respond tells us all we need to know about his lack of character.

Abraham is typical of the alarmist contingent’s lack of class in general.

==============================

Other than Monckton’s word, where is your evidence that a letter has been sent and that Abraham has refused to comment. When was it sent? How much time does Abraham have to respond? What did it say? Was it as insulting as Monckton’s public response to Abraham’s presentation? “””

So Cal; did I miss something here? Can you give me a citation that points to the documentation that confirms or even supports the accuracy of YOUR point of view; I didn’t see that anywhere; and I know what a stickler your are for peer reviewed documentary backup for everything you say.

I’m delighted to see Richard Courtney’s explanations here. I still find his understanding to be the deepest and most coherent understanding, by far, that I’ve seen anywhere, of why the AGW myth ever took root. I’d like to see his material promoted to a separate post here. I was just thinking, how many warring half-truths I was seeing here, then Richard shows how apparently contradictory fragments can all fit together. Yes, originally Thatcher believed AGW was possible, as most of us did originally, she did use her scientific knowledge and concern to bolster her reputation and credibility, she did need to put money where her mouth was in founding the Hadley Centre and funding multi-disciplinary climate research, she did come to see that it was not a danger, but she did need to keep on supporting climate concern in order to keep her reputation. Her words show she understood the real science very exactly but you have to read them carefully to see just that, because she speaks as both scientist and politician, one who has to be seen as facing things other people are concerned about, even while knowing herself that there was little to worry about.

I applaud Monckton’s reply here, inviting Abrahams to respond privately and apologizing for his own OTT language towards Abrahams. Monckton’s science, and knowledge of science, wins over that of RealClimate and all the AGW crowd, hands down, as I’ve shown in crucial detail on my web page re. his original “refutation” by Gavin Schmidt, and confirmed to myself with further close investigation of similar issues. I fear this is why no AGW believer wants to debate openly, directly, with Monckton; this is what makes me most sick at heart about the lack of integrity in science currently.

Now the “sorcerer’s apprentice” feedback loop has kicked in, as Courtney alone, it seems, foresaw.

So Cal; did I miss something here? Can you give me a citation that points to the documentation that confirms or even supports the accuracy of YOUR point of view; I didn’t see that anywhere; and I know what a stickler your are for peer reviewed documentary backup for everything you say.

Using your original Abraham link to support your defense of Abraham? Isn’t that a circular argument?

==================================

Nope. I’ve been arguing that Monckton’s accusation (later blindly accepted by posters on this thread) that Abraham’s presentation was full of ad hominem attacks was incorrect. Going straight to the source and actually listening to the presentation is the best way to confirm this.

Smokey says
June 18, 2010 at 7:14 pm:

Score one for George E. Smith.

Your main problem is trying to prop up a guy who hides out while taking internet pot shots. That looks really bad. No matter how you spin it, Abraham is a coward.

==================================

Are you trying to suggest that scientific disputes can only be conducted face to face? I’d say there’s a pretty long history to the contrary. In any case, I find it ironic that someone hiding behind a pseudonym is accusing Abraham (who provided his real name, email address, place of employment, CV, etc) of being a coward for “hiding out”.

Ah, but I am not posting polemics via the internet, attacking people who merely have a different point of view, like Abraham does, am I?

And who are you? You use a name, but beyond that handle there is no veracity. You could be Gavin Schmidt for all we know. Or the debunked Michael Mann.

And yes, Abraham is a coward. If I’m wrong, I expect to see an upcoming debate between him and the Viscount. But I’m not wrong…

…am I?

=======================================

You’re right. I could be Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann or anyone else. But that doesn’t matter since I’m not asking you to take me at my word. I made a statement that those suggesting Abraham’s presentation was full of ad hominem attacks were wrong and then I provided the link to Abraham’s actual presentation so his critics could actually see for themselves. Get back to me when you’ve read it. I know it requires more effort than just typing the sentence ‘Abraham is a coward’ over and over, but it’s cowards who take the easy way out. And you don’t want to find yourself labeled a coward now do you, Smokey?

Get back to me when you’ve either got some examples of Abraham’s ad hominem pot shots or an admission that you were wrong.

A debate wouldn’t be thorough, primarily analytical, and fairly balanced in its coverage of the contentious points. What ought to be done is for M to post all A’s statements, one at a time, and interject rebuttals (and/or concessions, or clarifications). Then A can reply and interject his rebuttals (and concessions), etc., etc. It should all be done online, where links and graphics can be studied at everyone’s leisure.

I have looked and came across one curious connection. The coldest water in the oceans is near the bottom and the coldest water also stores the most dissolved CO2. Now the ocean current circuit takes approximately ~1600 years to complete one complete cycle. There are multiple places where surface currents dive to the depths and conversely deep water is forced to the surface and these points are about one-half of the worlds circumference apart.

I’m not saying this is conclusive but it is a curiosity since these periods tend to be of the same general scale.
See: Thermohaline circulation

Excuse me, but isn’t the reason we won’t have sufficient energy generating capacity because our political leaders have decided to shun fossil fuels because of global warming hysteria? And isn’t it also the case that it was cheaper to import coal from Russia than mine our own so if we wanted to build coal fired power stations we could have, whether or not we mined our own coal?

Hi Vincent, it’s true I got into a Thatcher hate rant here, but note that “our political leaders have decided to shun fossil fuels because of global warming hysteria?” that she started

She actually imported coal from anyhere that would sell it to us to break the Miners. Including brown which was hugely inferior to the domestic product coal from south american mines with apalling safety records using child labour . It caused much worse emissions and huge technical problems for the power plant operators.

My thanks to Richard Courtney for his level headed analysis, I now see that he wasn’t trying to defend Thatcher so much as Christopher Monckton.

Great to see Lucy posting again here too. Three months with no internet! How did you survive?

I write to thank you for your kind, generous and unsolicited comment at June 19, 2010 at 12:59 am that says:

“My thanks to Richard Courtney for his level headed analysis, I now see that he wasn’t trying to defend Thatcher so much as Christopher Monckton.”

And I add that all debate on the web would benefit from being conducted in the forthright, robust, considered and honest manner that the totality of your posts in this thread has demonstrated. Indeed, I thank you for your your challenges that forced me to explain my reasoning which I had clearly not presented in an adequate manner for you – so probably others, too – to undertand.

I add that all debate on the web would benefit from being conducted in the forthright, robust, considered and honest manner that the totality of your posts in this thread has demonstrated.

Thanks for those kind words too Richard. I just want to add that although Thatcher did at least express some uncertainties about climate science in her 1990 speech she says at the end:

“But our immediate task this week is to carry as many countries as possible with us, so that we can negotiate a successful framework convention on climate change in 1992. We must also begin work on the binding commitments that will be necessary to make the convention work.

To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC’s report or debating the right machinery for making progress. The International Panel’s work should be taken as our sign post: and the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation as the principal vehicles for reaching our destination. ”

This amounts to a decree that “The science is settled – the debate is over.” It also enshrines these unelected, unaccountable supra-national quangos as the final arbiters of policy and direction (towards global governance).

This from the leader of the party most sceptical about handing more power to bureaucrats in Brussels. What was she thinking? I think she was setting the stage for herself in the role of international stateswoman, recognising her domestic political authority was a waning star.

An online discussion would be a good way to go. If Abraham ever comes out of hiding, this can be sorted out online. Not as satisfying as a live public debate, but much better than the current one-sided polemic.

It’s always a shame that any thread on Thatcher has to result in the regurgitation of Left wing myths of how she single handedly and deliberately destroyed British industry (what absolute nonsense). The reality of course is that as well as (with President Reagan) freeing Eastern Europe from the Communist tyrrany that the left would have the UK be subjected to, she removed the cancer of unelected union political power and rescued the economy from bankruptcy to robust health as all incoming conservative governments are destined to do.

If she let this dreadful MMGW genie out of the bottle then that is very unfortunate and she also signed the Treaty of Rome which helped set up the EUSSR. I’ll forgive her anything though because of what she did to straw head Scargill. I believe that destruction of the mining Union was her main driver in promoting a move away from coal to nuclear.

At June 19, 2010 at 8:22 am you assert:
“It’s always a shame that any thread on Thatcher has to result in the regurgitation of Left wing myths of how she single handedly and deliberately destroyed British industry (what absolute nonsense).”

Then you conclude with:
” If she let this dreadful MMGW genie out of the bottle then that is very unfortunate and she also signed the Treaty of Rome which helped set up the EUSSR. I’ll forgive her anything though because of what she did to straw head Scargill. I believe that destruction of the mining Union was her main driver in promoting a move away from coal to nuclear.”

Hmmm. I prefer to assess the factual evidence instead of subscribing to right wing (or any other wing) myths.

Mike and Christoph, consider Maggie’s rise to the highest political office in the UK, in a chauvinist party, in the light of the tenets of Machiavellian Intelligence (google or bing). Consider the success rate of programs for which the UN is primarily responsible, when those programs require a consensus of the UN membership. Essentially zero.
Maggie knew all that. Is it possible she intentionally brought the global warming nonsense to a halt by dumping it on the UN? Was she aware that telling the world’s leaders and scientists to make a UN report their “guidepost” and to not argue the science espoused by the IPCC would be tantamount to throwing on all the brakes of the global warming movement?
Whatever she knew and whenever she knew it, twenty years later UN functionaries are jetting around the globe attempting to get a consensus on global warming. Mexico, anyone?

Smokey: “My central point, which you have consistently avoided, is that Abraham runs and hides out from any honest debate. Wake me when your boy mans up.”

Consistently? I’ve made one comment. Monckton has yet to reply to Abraham, so Abraham has no need to hide.

Fact is, Monckton is happy to critique the work of climate scientists without their permission. When his own work is critiqued, he squeals “not fair!”. Sorry, if you venture into the kitchen, prepare to take the heat.

So. Both you and Monckton have claimed that Abraham has made ad-hominen comments. Monckton’s words are: “…so venomously ad-hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities”. Care to cite these venomous puerilities?

And referring to Abraham as a “climate scientist” is preposterous; also, no one needs your ‘permission’ for such a reference, as you demand.

And since I have never, as you allege, referred to ‘artful puerilities’ [sic], I’d say it’s time to lay off the cooking sherry.☺

The Viscount is your intellectual superior, like it or not, and your personal attacks against him come off as limp and impotent. Lord Monckton doesn’t win debates by accident. He wins them with facts; facts which the alarmist contingent lacks.

I answer:
Not “who”, but “what” because documentary evidence determines what is factual.

Opinions are worthess (everyone has many), but an agreed official record (e.g. minutes of meetings, Hansard, etc.) is fact.

However, I would not expect a Tory to understand this because history demonstrates Tories think their assertions have more importance than “facts” (e.g. see their press releases prior to Tuesday’s budget).

Smokey: Brendan H, Thank you for that interesting link, I’ve added it to my blogroll. All is forgiven.

Followed that link, noticed the home page had an article entitled “For Lucy (should I find her) and a hilariously wilting Eiffel Tower. OMG!
Thanks y’all. My situation is changed now and I may not have so much time here but we shall see.

I write to refute your disingenuous remarks to me at June 20, 2010 at 7:12 am where you assert to me:
“I ask again
“And who determines what is factual and what isn’t”
You haven’t answered.”

That is untrue.

At June 20, 2010 at 12:36 am I answered your question saying:

“I answer:
Not “who”, but “what” because documentary evidence determines what is factual.
Opinions are worthess (everyone has many), but an agreed official record (e.g. minutes of meetings, Hansard, etc.) is fact.”

Simply, I stated clearly – and with no equivocation – that your assertion of “facts” being the assertions of specific persons is not correct and, therefore, your demand to know which of those persons can be trusted is a false question.

Many similar false questions are possible; e.g. ‘What is the name of the Pope’s wife?’

And I stated that ‘fact’ is recorded as documentary evidence.

There is much value in debate concerning the reliability of specific and/or contradictory documentary evidence. However, you have ignored the invitation for such discussion that is implicit in my answer and, instead, you have repeated your false question.

Then you compound that error (n.b. “my use of the word “error” here is a polite euphemism) by asking me:

“And who are you to say that I’m a Tory? You don’t have to be so to be derisory of the UK left and its dreadful misgovernment of the UK from Wilson to Brown and all stops in between. Dear me.”

That is a complete fabrication that misrepresents what happened here. My post at June 19, 2010 at 10:27 am quoted you and commented on what you had said. That complete post from me said;

“At June 19, 2010 at 8:22 am you assert:
“It’s always a shame that any thread on Thatcher has to result in the regurgitation of Left wing myths of how she single handedly and deliberately destroyed British industry (what absolute nonsense).”
Then you conclude with:
” If she let this dreadful MMGW genie out of the bottle then that is very unfortunate and she also signed the Treaty of Rome which helped set up the EUSSR. I’ll forgive her anything though because of what she did to straw head Scargill. I believe that destruction of the mining Union was her main driver in promoting a move away from coal to nuclear.”
Hmmm. I prefer to assess the factual evidence instead of subscribing to right wing (or any other wing) myths.”

At June 19, 2010 at 6:13 pm you first presented your false question to me in response to that post and – as I quote above in this post – I answered your false question at June 20, 2010 at 12:36 am. And I concluded that posting by saying of my answer:

“However, I would not expect a Tory to understand this because history demonstrates Tories think their assertions have more importance than “facts” (e.g. see their press releases prior to Tuesday’s budget).”

That was my only mention of a “Tory” and/or “Tories” in our exchange and it attributed nothing to you personally.

So, not content, with
1. presenting a false question,
2. ignoring my explanation of why that is false question,
3. ignoring my explanation of what is the correct and pertinent question,
4. ignoring my invitation to to discuss the merits an problems of the correct question, and
5. repeating the false question
you also misrepresent what I said and demand to know what “who I am” to have said something I did not say!

Now that people have had a few days to view Abraham’s presentation, can anyone (including Christopher Monckton, if he is still monitoring this thread) provide examples of the alleged ad-hominem attacks against Monckton included therein? As I said above, I found none.

I completely agree. Indeed, if you accuse someone of ad-hominems, you should at least mention what the ad hominems were. Following the tactics of Monckton himself, accusing Abraham of ad-hominems, without giving an example, is just ridiculous.

“On 10 July my letter to Abraham, and a subsequent letter from me to the president of his university raising some concerns about his talk, will be published, together with any replies that may have been received by then.”

Anybody seen anything yet? I’m anxious to hear what Abraham got wrong and where in his presentation he used ad-hominem attacks against Monckton.